[Bored chemist]

Andrew, either you are wrong or all the worlds geologists are wrong.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say that it's "probably" them who are wrong?

It's overwhelmingly probable that the earth is much the same size as it was when it was first made roughly 4.5 billion years ago.
The details of how we know this are given here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
and elsewhere.

Your contention that the heat is generated by the debris falling onto the earth is also nonsense. If there were that much heat we would notice it and more importantly, the centre of the earth would be at the same temperature as the surface.

It is not the recognised ideas of geology that are absurd; it's your notion that's absurd.

At least this makes a change from having to correct "young earthers".

[Andrew K Fletcher]

BC my contention is not that the heat is generated by debris falling on the Earth. It is generated by the collective force of every single particle that has arrived here pushing against each other and not cancelling the repelling force but combining it at the core, and that gravity is the combined effect of every attracting side of the same particles that are causing the immense friction at the core.

For every action there must be an opposing equal and opposite reaction! This must apply to gravity too, or do we now have a special law that works around gravity?

Mass = the collective force of the mass not the collective pulling force of the mass but the collective force of the mass which means that the pulling force of all of those particles has not somehow disposed of the repelling force, it has to be accounted for!

It is not I that is stupid!

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

 []

Of cource earth-born can have 2 possibilityes.
A. Sun throw some heat melt material and this material start to freeze when time long time goes on.
B. Dust start to join together and long time ago growing and growing.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Today earth is todays size.

Of cource it is maybe possible that volcano can be some kind of cave inside earth surface level,,,i mean that old oil-pocket which are heating and make volcanos,,and that means then that erth surface in-ball-center is not heat,,it is like moon,,only rock. I dont know.

 []

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

Andrew, either you are wrong or all the worlds geologists are wrong.

 []
World geologists can be wrong,,,why so? They use same theory,,therefore geologist is hmm. not wrong because they believe that basic theory is right,,,.

What is basic theory of that age-specification?

Is it right theory?

It is not right because we dont have better theory,,it is not so.

Must remember our measuring time how we can prove that theory that this theory is right.

When we says some radioactive time,,,how we have prove that radioactive time-specifitacion is same all time?

Radioactive change/year?

But any-path,,,my opinion is that earth is many billions year,,,how many,,that is the point what we cannot calculate,,,even that way

 []

[Bored chemist]

BC my contention is not that the heat is generated by debris falling on the Earth. It is generated by the collective force of every single particle that has arrived here pushing against each other and not cancelling the repelling force but combining it at the core, and that gravity is the combined effect of every attracting side of the same particles that are causing the immense friction at the core.

For every action there must be an opposing equal and opposite reaction! This must apply to gravity too, or do we now have a special law that works around gravity?

Mass = the collective force of the mass not the collective pulling force of the mass but the collective force of the mass which means that the pulling force of all of those particles has not somehow disposed of the repelling force, it has to be accounted for!

It is not I that is stupid!

Heat is a form of energy. The only place that the enegry can come from that has anything to do with falling dust is the potential energy that the dust had before it fell.
If any of that energy is subsequently used squashing rocks then there is less available to make heat. You are arguing against yourself here.
Also since mass isn't a force your staement about "Mass = ..." is gibberish.

So you have posted a bunch of word salad and a denial of the conservation of energy on a science based web site. Then you follow it with "It is not I that is stupid!"
Well I assure you that it isn't I that am stupid and it isn't me that is stupid either.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Yet again you fail to address what is happening to the collective repelling force of every single particle that makes up this planet and you and I? Has it somehow vanished into a black hole? Or is it still here pushing against other particles.

Compression generates heat too! Try putting your finger over a bycycle pump and compressing the air. Why would you not think that the huge pressure at the core may not suffice to generate sufficient heat to melt it?

[A Davis]

I don't know the answer. The Sun gets larger over time, so it could be true for the Earth, a cooling effect.

[Bored chemist]

Yet again you fail to address what is happening to the collective repelling force of every single particle that makes up this planet and you and I? Has it somehow vanished into a black hole? Or is it still here pushing against other particles.

Compression generates heat too! Try putting your finger over a bycycle pump and compressing the air. Why would you not think that the huge pressure at the core may not suffice to generate sufficient heat to melt it?

OK, for a start that frist sentence should end with "me" not "I".
Rather more importantly, what the F*** force are you on about? Gravity atracts things to one another and, when they get close enough Pauli pressure holds them apart (aided by the mutual repulsion between electrons it's difficult to say which is which in some cases).

However, once everything has stopped moving, though there is a force, there is mo movement.
Since work is force times distance, the work done is zero. Therefore the energy transfered is zero.
Once the particles have stopped moving they don't release any further heat. Since the crash into the surface and stop they can only heat the surface.
Since the core is hotter than the surface this energy (from things falling onto the earth) cannot be a major contributor to keeping the earth warm.


I know that a bicycle pump gets hot. If you stop using it it cools down again. A cylinder of gas isn't hot just because it's under pressure and the earth's core is likewise not hot because of the pressure. It's hot for a well dcumented reason- the radioactive decay of naturally radioactive material- mainly thorium and uranium releases heat.
(Of course, the earth as a whole gets a lot of heat from the sun too).

Why won't you learn some physics?

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Add 1 gram to the surface of the earth and you add 1 gram of pressure at the core.

[A Davis]

 To BC the heat inside the sun and the earth are both due to relativity. The relativistic mass increase of both was gained due to their rotational increase in velocity around our galaxy. Their mass crusts slow down the rate at which they release this energy increase. Or is this to new for you to understand. I object to the F word.

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

I don't know the answer. The Sun gets larger over time, so it could be true for the Earth, a cooling effect.

 []

My question concern also sun same way.

Do we really known is sun size growing or diminishing?

We have measure sun-diameter todays accurace method about only under 100years,,,and i think that this so short measuring time dont give us enough scientifical measured information to decide that sun is today going bigger or smaller?

What was the sun diameter year 1900,,1950..2000?

 []

[Ultima]

If you talk about shortly after the creation of the Earth it's possible to think about it being larger and less dense and then cooling? Not sure that fits into the rest of the discussion here though.

Hei-Tai the main thing you need to realise is that you don't have to get measurements of the Earth's diameter through time, you only need to consider the current diameter and then all of the input that gives you excess mass, which is what everyone was telling you. Unless you are talking about the formation of the planet and accretion of matter at the start? Which from some of your other posts about the formation of the Earth, might have been what you were asking without anyone realising?? If you are interested in the formation of the Earth here are a couple of quick links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation#Rocky_planets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc

Again talking about the Sun's diameter is fairly confusing since its not a solid, and doesn't have a well defined boundary. What are you counting as the stuff you should measure. Most values you get from books or websites take the layer of the Sun called the photosphere as the "surface" but that isn't a complete definition. Do you count average prominence and solar flare extent??? Do you count the corona? Do you count the solar wind up to some density? When the Sun eventually becomes a Red Giant it won't have uniform mass, it will have a less dense outer shell that expands outwards eventually forming a nebula, but there will still be a much more dense core that will be getting smaller and smaller over a long period of time. So even when the Sun gets bigger in the future over a huge period of time, its kind of getting smaller at the same time, so what does it mean to talk about the diameter of the "Sun". It's a bit more dynamic than a ball of rock... You can say the same for the Earth too, it has an atmosphere which people don't usually count when talking about the diameter, which I find kind of an odd way to think about the Earth!

Geographically you quite often treat the shape of the Earth to be that of its mean gravitational field at the surface or the Geoid, if you did the same for the Sun you are likely to end up with something a bit different, and you might want to think about the magnetic field at the surface instead since that might account for things like prominences.

[A Davis]

To HT you are correct there isn't enough experimental evidence to confirm that the sun is expanding as it cools. There is one possible theory for the earth expanding and that's plate tectonics, the plates want to increase the earths diameter, it's prevented from doing so by the plates sliding under each other. Reverse the idea and say the earth is contracting, to me this sliding wouldn't occur and they would form massive mountain ranges. It's only an idea, food for thought.

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

 []

This link is more that what i meant.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20289.msg259185#msg259185

 []

[Bored chemist]

So, what you meant was a bunch of unscientific guesswork.
Why?

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

So, what you meant was a bunch of unscientific guesswork.
Why?

 []

How those question is un-scientific?

Do you think that if i dont thing that big-bang was happend and etc.,,,or,,things what scientist says is not all thruth,,,,,make my question un-scientific?

And what if my questions is not scientific,,,so what,,,? Free human can make un-scientific questions and still free human is,,,,,human,,,individual living thing.

What is the point of you questions?


Why,,,you ask?

Why i live,,,i dont know.  []

But one reasons is,,,scientist make lot of bad things to our life,,,nuclear bomp,,,gene-manipulation,,,different poisons,,,,electromagnetic vibrations,,,etc,,,,am i wrong if i dont believe that scientist and scient dont has meaning of nature life,,,am i wrong if i says,,,scient dont has life-morale,,life understand,,,nature understand,,,hmm,,,perhaps im wrong or right.

My point is that many things which comes through scient-process is not nature-thruth,,,and dont support life,,,life continue,,,free nature life,,,,and therefore also many old basic scient theoryes are wrong,,,,.

Human is not all-knowing control-unit at nature,,,human is part of nature. [:I]


 []

[edwlstr]

I suspect the earth is growing. The ocean bottoms are newer and expanding, the continental mass is very much older. This is an assumption that I have made that is based upon another assumption that carbon testing procedures are accurate, which I highly suspect. Questioning this sacred cow of science is likely to make you very unpopular, though. We are uncertain whether accumulation and decay of carbon isotopes occur at the same rates. So it may be that we are using a very faulty measuring stick to measure these ages. But let's not bicker. It doesn't really matter, we are insects on a very insignificant speck of dust in an expanding and apparently endless universe. We cannot matter very much except to God. 

[Bored chemist]

I suspect the earth is growing. 

Then read this thread.

[Stefanb]

[/quote]

 []

How those question is un-scientific?

Do you think that if i dont thing that big-bang was happend and etc.,,,or,,things what scientist says is not all thruth,,,,,make my question un-scientific?

And what if my questions is not scientific,,,so what,,,? Free human can make un-scientific questions and still free human is,,,,,human,,,individual living thing.

What is the point of you questions?


Why,,,you ask?

Why i live,,,i dont know.  []

But one reasons is,,,scientist make lot of bad things to our life,,,nuclear bomp,,,gene-manipulation,,,different poisons,,,,electromagnetic vibrations,,,etc,,,,am i wrong if i dont believe that scientist and scient dont has meaning of nature life,,,am i wrong if i says,,,scient dont has life-morale,,life understand,,,nature understand,,,hmm,,,perhaps im wrong or right.

My point is that many things which comes through scient-process is not nature-thruth,,,and dont support life,,,life continue,,,free nature life,,,,and therefore also many old basic scient theoryes are wrong,,,,.

Human is not all-knowing control-unit at nature,,,human is part of nature. [:I]


 []






[/quote]


Hei-Tai, is not nature of itself? Should we not be able to understand it, because we are nature?

I think so. And coming from an irreligious perspective, science explains many natural phenomena. That which we cannot explain, math does. Those enigmas which our mathematical abilities currently cannot explain are not necessarily unexplainable. Rather, we are constantly learning more about nature.

We have developed skills which help us explain nature. Even though we are only looking at things around us from the perspective of a piece of sand in an hourglass as big as the Earth, that does not mean we cannot use experimentation to create theories (which does not mean they are only possibilities) which allow us to explain things that have occurred before we could measure nature, and events that have transpired before our own existence.