|
CONTRARIANTHINKER |
|
The Life Cycle of a Hot Condensing Sphere in Space By dB The 'Clangers'
Introduction I believe Neal Adams, the man who created Batman and the X-men, and others are correct when they claim the Earth is expanding. The hypothesis is based on the following observations. 1) The present ocean floor is no older than 700 million years (much younger in the middle), while the continents are around 2000 million years old, determined by radiometric dating. The Earth is at least 4.5 Billion Years Old. The oldest metamorphic rocks are nearly 4 Bn years old. 2) If you remove all of the oceans, what is left forms a neat spherical jigsaw of approximately half the existing Earth diameter (oceans currently cover 3/4 of the globe). 3) Ancient fish fossils are found on high land 4) Dinosaurs' skeletons and massive scale suggest vastly different conditions on Earth as recently as 65million years ago. Explanations been offered to account for the above observations. 1) The Earth must be growing in mass (not just inflating) and expanding outwards. This model assumes matter is being created from the flux of space. It does have the advantage of allowing for increasing gravity. It falls down because the Earth's growth appears to be nonlinear - static until 700m (or less) years ago followed by a subsequent near doubling in size. 2) In the last 2 weeks I have given thought to the problem, and joined the (microscopic) ranks of those challenging Newton's Shell Theorem. The argument goes along the lines that the Earth's expansion is due to a hard condensed shell gravitationally attracting matter to it from the inside. An extension of this argument reasoned that, as matter moved from the core to nearer the surface, surface gravity would increase. Both the attraction of mass to the shell, and a subsequent increase in perceived gravity on the surface (an increase in gravity from a lower value is a proposed reason for both dinosaur growth and extinction) violated Newton's Shell Theorem. 2 weeks ago I had never heard of NST! NST may well be flawed, although if it is a lot of bright people have not disproved it. In any case, if gravity at the surface of planet Earth were to be locally increased, then at least one of two phenomena would have to occur. If close-to-surface gravity was not obeying the inverse square law, then space-flight would show this error up. It does not. If the effect was to simply increase the gravitational field of the Earth it would imply that gravity was not just a function of mass but of mass distribution. It would also require a significant counterbalancing change in the orbit of the Earth. 3) During my search for mechanisms for an expanding Earth (the evidence for which is, IMO, close to conclusive) I came upon a very interesting theory, based on experimental science, which suggests that the Earth is expanding because the core is out-gassing the hydrogen that was trapped there as a proton fluid (much as electrons, at more normal pressures, are free to conduct). Hydrogen is surprisingly soluble in molten metal even at atmospheric pressure. http://www.polarpublishing.com I have to say this is now my front-runner in mechanisms for our expanding Earth. It can account for much. A difficulty with explaining now the dinosaurs grew so large in what must have been somewhat higher gravity (a smaller planet - though not the REALLY small planet before the continents started to part) remains. Some have suggested that there may have been more oxygen in the atmosphere, enabling higher blood oxygen levels, and subsequent larger growth. The out-gassing of metal-absorbed hydrogen (eventually reaching the surface/crust as hydrogen, natural gas, or various hydrides especially silicides which form silicates (sand) in water) could certainly account for oxygen depletion. For those of you who have bothered to read my earlier flight of fancy my apologies for wasting your time! dB Maverick Neurons ...you never know what might turn up.... Footnote 'Then, Collins and Hunt progress to the chemical and petrological consequences of the generation of hydrides from the silicides, especially silicon carbide.' http://www.polarpublishing.com/#expanding The logical endgame of such a process would presumably be a planet devoid of atmospheric oxygen. Perhaps this is what happened to the Martian atmosphere? Smaller planet, shorter evolutionary time? If so there may have been life on Mars at one time.
|
