As the number of orbits the Earth logs up around the Sun, the planet slowly expands as it slowly moves further away from the Sun.
The expanding Earth is verified by the existence of volcanoes, and tectonic plates....rafts of slag forming the ground you sit on
Earthquakes are common on a world with a molten core, and they will not cease until the core cools down.... a cold core (as on Mars) will not have earthquakes.
Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet will break apart due to electrical forces.
So fortunately for earthlings your Earth is still holding together...even though for some the ride is rather shaky.
2008 seems to be the year of shaken but not stirred.
Flexi, yet again you have come up with a wacko theory with no basis in observed facts. The Earth isn't expanding, the Earth isn't moving away from the sun. You have been proved wrong on these concepts already.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 8:02 AM Report this post · Quote
Earthquakes are common on a world with a molten core, and they will not cease until the core cools down.... a cold core (as on Mars) will not have earthquakes.
Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet will break apart due to electrical forces.
Earthquakes are common on a world with a molten core, and they will not cease until the core cools down.... a cold core (as on Mars) will not have earthquakes.
Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet will break apart due to electrical forces.
if both these comments are true, then why has mars not broken apart ?
PS Flexi? i have been away far to long, so much to catch up on ...
QUOTE
why has mars not broken apart ?
In the very near future (in cosmic time) it will
Already it has expanded quite a lot over unity....can't find my notes.. but something like 200%
Its atmosphere is being rapidly stripped off and its moons are in chaos
nice to see y'r back, err and your front
LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 30 2008, 07:25 PM)
Already it has expanded quite a lot over unity....can't find my notes.. but something like 200%
Check the walls of your padded cell. This is complete nonsense.
Show us some proof of any of this.
Check the walls of your padded cell. This is complete nonsense.
Show us some proof of any of this.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 31 2008, 12:25 AM)
In the very near future (in cosmic time) it will
Already it has expanded quite a lot over unity....can't find my notes.. but something like 200%
Its atmosphere is being rapidly stripped off and its moons are in chaos
nice to see y'r back, err and your front
LOL
Inmate #2114 needs another dose of anti - psychotic medicine.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 29 2008, 10:02 PM)
As the number of orbits the Earth logs up around the Sun, the planet slowly expands as it slowly moves further away from the Sun.
The expanding Earth is verified by the existence of volcanoes, and tectonic plates....rafts of slag forming the ground you sit on
Earthquakes are common on a world with a molten core, and they will not cease until the core cools down.... a cold core (as on Mars) will not have earthquakes.
Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet will break apart due to electrical forces.
So fortunately for earthlings your Earth is still holding together...even though for some the ride is rather shaky.
2008 seems to be the year of shaken but not stirred.
If you going to be a crank, at least try to be amusing.
Your posts suck.
The expanding Earth is verified by the existence of volcanoes, and tectonic plates....rafts of slag forming the ground you sit on
Earthquakes are common on a world with a molten core, and they will not cease until the core cools down.... a cold core (as on Mars) will not have earthquakes.
Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet will break apart due to electrical forces.
So fortunately for earthlings your Earth is still holding together...even though for some the ride is rather shaky.
2008 seems to be the year of shaken but not stirred.
If you going to be a crank, at least try to be amusing.
Your posts suck.
QUOTE
Gehn Posted on Today at 1:48 AM Inmate #2114 needs another dose of anti - psychotic medicine.
request approved.
administering umaga
QUOTE
Show us some proof of any of this.
seems most people here are adverse to math
do it yourself
density of Mercury =.... (planet that is...goons
transpose to Mars..... mass Mars ---> diameter at Mercury's density
now work out expansion (clue real diameter/ transposed diameter X100...LOL )..... too hard... well I have done it, so a ???? like me can do it so can you !!!!!!!
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 31 2008, 03:48 PM)
seems most people here are adverse to math
do it yourself
density of Mercury =.... (planet that is...goons
transpose to Mars..... mass Mars ---> diameter at Mercury's density
now work out expansion (clue real diameter/ transposed diameter X100...LOL )..... too hard... well I have done it, so a ???? like me can do it so can you !!!!!!!
You call this complete gibberish proof?
Well if you actually did the math, you might be surprised !!
err, what was ! +1 = ????
1! LOL
err, what was ! +1 = ????
1! LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 13 2008, 10:36 PM)
Well if you actually did the math, you might be surprised !!
If I did the math I wouldn't be stupid enough to assume Mars had the same density as Mercury. Nor have you gotten anywhere close to applying this to Earth or your strange fantasy that it is expanding.
If I did the math I wouldn't be stupid enough to assume Mars had the same density as Mercury. Nor have you gotten anywhere close to applying this to Earth or your strange fantasy that it is expanding.
In ejection theory, all planets have been ejected from the Sun, via a "clockwork" type of "core charge" mechanism
thus all planets once had the density of Mercury
Earth has expanded about 1% and growing...
Mars is whatever, can't remember but greatly expanded due to its cold core... the planet pushes itself apart....
LOL, not you cup of coffee... LOL
well its mine OK
and I have the math to prove it.
All the planets are in a quantum series that is "clockwork" and only dependent upon pi !!
amazing...don't you think ?
LOL
pearls to swine.... oh well.
thus all planets once had the density of Mercury
Earth has expanded about 1% and growing...
Mars is whatever, can't remember but greatly expanded due to its cold core... the planet pushes itself apart....
LOL, not you cup of coffee... LOL
well its mine OK
and I have the math to prove it.
All the planets are in a quantum series that is "clockwork" and only dependent upon pi !!
amazing...don't you think ?
LOL
pearls to swine.... oh well.
Zarkov, I am starting to worry about you friend. You can't keep latching onto every hypothesis that you stumble upon. Many of the people behind such foolishness aren't even scientists, they are theoriticians. Very few theoriticians are worthwhile.
Zarkov, you freak. How the heck can you post these absurdities without being laughed at constantly. 
QUOTE
How the heck can you post these....
They all flow from theory...yes different but plausible and equally observable
and according to Occam's razor they are more "believable" than the established contortions of the decayed minds of blinkered researchers.
and the details flow from a mathematical analysis...... it is all there
Nature is not so difficult to understand... you just have to have the clearest glasses on.
I ask you one question..
Pimples on people's faces are the result of pressure....
Why do volcanoes erupt..... ?
and don't tell me it is because gravity is causing the Earth to shrink !!!! LOL
The SAME set of NATURAL processes are occurring in all places of the Universe... a limited and closed set... earthlings seem to want to make up exceptions upon exceptions, as if the laws of physics are totally corruptible
and y'all, like sheep, like researchers, like typical earthlings, constantly look for answers in the ever changing shapes of the clouds.
I suggest y'all start to read... read the history of science... and how IDEAS change...the facts usually remain the same............ LOL
QUOTE (midwestern+Jun 14 2008, 03:19 PM)
Zarkov, you freak. How the heck can you post these absurdities without being laughed at constantly.
He's use to it by now.
>Nature is not so difficult to understand... you just have to have the clearest glasses on.
Then ,,, Please ,, put them on.
He's use to it by now.
>Nature is not so difficult to understand... you just have to have the clearest glasses on.
Then ,,, Please ,, put them on.
Zarkster,
>Mars is whatever, can't remember,,, but greatly expanded due to its cold core...
Here you go little smurf, chew on this (just for fun):
As the core cools the size decreases.
>Mars is whatever, can't remember,,, but greatly expanded due to its cold core...
Here you go little smurf, chew on this (just for fun):
As the core cools the size decreases.
My soul is bleeding.
This thread is bizzare, even for Zarkov.
This thread is bizzare, even for Zarkov.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 14 2008, 12:36 AM)
Well if you actually did the math, you might be surprised !!
err, what was ! +1 = ????
1! LOL
So You managed to (Prove) that Mars is bigger then mercury.
Now what happens to the whole system when Mars breaks apart?
I got it,, earth will get even bigger, now it won't have Mars absorbing all of that solar radiation. This will cause The core of earth to heat up. That will cause more volcanos, they will cause the planet to expand even more. Right?
err, what was ! +1 = ????
1! LOL
So You managed to (Prove) that Mars is bigger then mercury.
Now what happens to the whole system when Mars breaks apart?
I got it,, earth will get even bigger, now it won't have Mars absorbing all of that solar radiation. This will cause The core of earth to heat up. That will cause more volcanos, they will cause the planet to expand even more. Right?
QUOTE
Now what happens to the whole system when Mars breaks apart?
it will form another ring of asteroids.... the asteroid belt is already heavily influenced by Jupiter
so both rings will together join and create a greater ring
Where is math ?..
what make you think accretion theory is correct... ? parroting earthlings !
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 15 2008, 05:18 PM)
it will form another ring of asteroids.... the asteroid belt is already heavily influenced by Jupiter
so both rings will together join and create a greater ring
Where is math ?..
what make you think accretion theory is correct... ? parroting earthlings !
So you are saying that accretion theory is what causes the earth to expand?
QUOTE
So you are saying that accretion theory is what causes the earth to expand?
LOL, accretion theory is a load..
evidence the Asteroid Belt... Saturn's rings etc......
Particles are driven apart via electric charge, and drawn together via magnetic dipoles...
As a planet expands its measured charge vector increases, and it measured magnetic vector decreases... the vectors B and the E are always harmonically balanced with each other. (BXE)^0.5 = g..... all, in this case, Sun defined
In the case of Mars, there is no water left.... conductivity in the planet is fractured and charge build up follows... its core is cold... it is crashing into Jupiter's magnetic Bloch wall... and it has expanded quite considerably...it is losing its atmosphere and it will soon (in cosmic time) break apart.
Evidence that the magnetic Bloch wall of Jupiter is causing massive perturbations of Mars' moons, is shown by their "inward" movement... the whole spin field of Mars is being severely disrupted.
This Solar System really is a very interesting laboratory. But earthlings really are so self centred that they see nothing... except their own imaginations... LOL
>The expanding Earth is verified by the existence of volcanoes, and tectonic plates....rafts of slag forming the ground you sit on
>In the case of Mars, there is no water left.... conductivity in the planet is fractured and charge build up follows... its core is cold... it is crashing into Jupiter's magnetic Bloch wall... and it has expanded quite considerably...it is losing its atmosphere and it will soon (in cosmic time) break apart.
So, make up your mind here,,,
Is the earth expanding because it is hot and Mars is expanding because it is cold?
>In the case of Mars, there is no water left.... conductivity in the planet is fractured and charge build up follows... its core is cold... it is crashing into Jupiter's magnetic Bloch wall... and it has expanded quite considerably...it is losing its atmosphere and it will soon (in cosmic time) break apart.
So, make up your mind here,,,
Is the earth expanding because it is hot and Mars is expanding because it is cold?
Earth, at present, is in a slow expansion process, due to the decreasing outside solar spin pressure... it is also expanding because the crust is thickening... cracking.
As the Earth moves AWAY from the Sun, it expands..... for reasons above....
Earth (and all 'solar' planets) is in its Sun's spherical pressure zone... the pressure decreases as a planet moves away from the solar centre.
Mars is an extreme case, the same fatal outcome eventually awaits all cosmic bodies once they get cold.
Moons are relatively protected since they only exist in the parent planet's spin zone....
for instance this is true for Pluto... Neptune is the Parent
As the Earth moves AWAY from the Sun, it expands..... for reasons above....
Earth (and all 'solar' planets) is in its Sun's spherical pressure zone... the pressure decreases as a planet moves away from the solar centre.
Mars is an extreme case, the same fatal outcome eventually awaits all cosmic bodies once they get cold.
Moons are relatively protected since they only exist in the parent planet's spin zone....
for instance this is true for Pluto... Neptune is the Parent
QUOTE (N O M+May 29 2008, 11:15 PM)
Flexi, yet again you have come up with a wacko theory with no basis in observed facts. The Earth isn't expanding, the Earth isn't moving away from the sun. You have been proved wrong on these concepts already.
The expanding earth theory is as old as plate tectonics and pretty much abaddoned but there are still people who believe it. Not quite this version though.
The expanding earth theory is as old as plate tectonics and pretty much abaddoned but there are still people who believe it. Not quite this version though.
>for instance this is true for Pluto... Neptune is the Parent
So now Pluto is a moon of Neptune.
Now how far away from the sun would a planet have to get before it quacks up?
And one more question:
Just how far is Pluto from the sun?
>Earth, at present, is in a slow expansion process...
So how would this expansion be reflected in the inertia moment of earth,, oh lets say over the past 420 million years?
So now Pluto is a moon of Neptune.
Now how far away from the sun would a planet have to get before it quacks up?
And one more question:
Just how far is Pluto from the sun?
>Earth, at present, is in a slow expansion process...
So how would this expansion be reflected in the inertia moment of earth,, oh lets say over the past 420 million years?
QUOTE
expansion be reflected in the inertia moment of earth,
All the planets are inertial... they do not depend upon mass, they do not have "a moment of inertia".
If you put Jupiter where Mercury is now, Jupiter would orbit at the same velocity as Mercury does now
Mass is an illusion.... and inertia as presently defined is idiotic... straight lines do not exist...only orbital paths exist.... and nothing in the Universe is stationary... even you standing there are whizzing along......
Size is only a surface gravity issue..... as the size gets bigger, the gravity value at the surface is lowered.
http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendConfirm
[quote] Zircons are tiny mineral grains smaller than a speck of sand, but they may have answered a very big question: Why have no rock samples have ever been found dating back to the first 500 million years of Earth’s existence? Previous explanations have included destruction by barrages of meteorites, as well as the possibility that the early Earth was a sizzling sea of magma.
"Currently, no rocks remain from before about 4 billion years ago," he says. "Some people consider this as evidence for very high temperature conditions on the ancient Earth," notes UW-Madison geologist Takayuki Ushikubo.[/b]
There is evidence that the Earth, rather than being an accretion of cold particles that then heated up ???? due to gravitational compression !!!! ???? ( LOL )
( funny how Mars is cold, Mercury isn't )
was actually a molten ball ...... extend that to each planet...
and you have fission theory for planetary production......
[quote] Zircons are tiny mineral grains smaller than a speck of sand, but they may have answered a very big question: Why have no rock samples have ever been found dating back to the first 500 million years of Earth’s existence? Previous explanations have included destruction by barrages of meteorites, as well as the possibility that the early Earth was a sizzling sea of magma.
"Currently, no rocks remain from before about 4 billion years ago," he says. "Some people consider this as evidence for very high temperature conditions on the ancient Earth," notes UW-Madison geologist Takayuki Ushikubo.[/b]
There is evidence that the Earth, rather than being an accretion of cold particles that then heated up ???? due to gravitational compression !!!! ???? ( LOL )
( funny how Mars is cold, Mercury isn't )
was actually a molten ball ...... extend that to each planet...
and you have fission theory for planetary production......
Hey, flip,, way to dodge an issue there slick. But your last 2 posts have nothing to do with the expansion of earth. Like I said before, Your claims are not supported.
I keep trying to show you that the earth is expanding and you keep side stepping the issue. Are you never going to admit that it is expanding or are you going to keep posting things that have nothing to do with anything. Well ,,, what's it going to be?
I keep trying to show you that the earth is expanding and you keep side stepping the issue. Are you never going to admit that it is expanding or are you going to keep posting things that have nothing to do with anything. Well ,,, what's it going to be?
QUOTE
keep trying to show you that the earth is expanding and you keep side stepping the issue. Are you never going to admit that it is expanding
oh you agree that the Earth is expanding.
The expanding earth is integral to the concept of fission planetary formation
which conjectures that a planet is born in fire, ejected by the parent star, orbits and over time recedes from the star... until a new ejection takes place, new planet.... thus a "solar system" is born..
However there is a pressure gradient that decreases from star to the star's L1 and L2 positions that it has with its parent cosmic system
Thus planets "expand" as they move away from their parent.....
However there are other process that occur once a cosmic body "solidifies"... has a cold core... eg Mars
The expansion of all cosmic bodies is an electric expansion (push apart).... however water tends to prevent such a process... well at least slow it down.
Not sure what your problem is paul h, but your thoughts are garbled.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 17 2008, 05:25 AM)
http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendConfirm
[quote] Zircons are tiny mineral grains smaller than a speck of sand, but they may have answered a very big question: Why have no rock samples have ever been found dating back to the first 500 million years of Earth’s existence? Previous explanations have included destruction by barrages of meteorites, as well as the possibility that the early Earth was a sizzling sea of magma.
"Currently, no rocks remain from before about 4 billion years ago," he says. "Some people consider this as evidence for very high temperature conditions on the ancient Earth," notes UW-Madison geologist Takayuki Ushikubo.[/b]
Are you really that retarded? They found zircons from before 4 billion years ago that bore the isotopic signature of having been formed in continental crust, and so the authors of the very paper you quoted concluded that the "sizzling sea of magma" is an incorrect conclusion. Instead they found that temperatures were low enough to allow oceans and the creation of continental crust, but the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the early atmosphere caused the rain to be so acidic that it destroyed all the earliest rocks, except for the very resistant zircons.
By the way, your link also sucks - here's a better one:
http://www.physorg.com/news132583481.html
[quote] Zircons are tiny mineral grains smaller than a speck of sand, but they may have answered a very big question: Why have no rock samples have ever been found dating back to the first 500 million years of Earth’s existence? Previous explanations have included destruction by barrages of meteorites, as well as the possibility that the early Earth was a sizzling sea of magma.
"Currently, no rocks remain from before about 4 billion years ago," he says. "Some people consider this as evidence for very high temperature conditions on the ancient Earth," notes UW-Madison geologist Takayuki Ushikubo.[/b]
Are you really that retarded? They found zircons from before 4 billion years ago that bore the isotopic signature of having been formed in continental crust, and so the authors of the very paper you quoted concluded that the "sizzling sea of magma" is an incorrect conclusion. Instead they found that temperatures were low enough to allow oceans and the creation of continental crust, but the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the early atmosphere caused the rain to be so acidic that it destroyed all the earliest rocks, except for the very resistant zircons.
By the way, your link also sucks - here's a better one:
http://www.physorg.com/news132583481.html
>Not sure what your problem is paul h, but your thoughts are garbled.
A dose of your own meds? Now you know what it is like debating you on any subject. Before you answer one point , you change positions. Hell you even contradict your self at times, (many times) or you will bring something else up that makes even less ... well, nuff said. (I will point out the Pluto Neptune moon thingy)
Now if you wish to discuss expansion, conceder that the position you have taken ( well at least at one time in this thread) of plate tectonics. This was a widely held theory in the 50's but not so anymore. Further to this is Subduction and conservation of mass. then to this add 620 million years of unchanged inertia moment. (citation). oh yea, accretion theory. Negligible, after planet formation.
It's not expanding. Unless you subscribe to comics artist Neal Adams work.
Citation:
Williams, G.E. (2000), “Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of the Earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit”, Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 37-59
A dose of your own meds? Now you know what it is like debating you on any subject. Before you answer one point , you change positions. Hell you even contradict your self at times, (many times) or you will bring something else up that makes even less ... well, nuff said. (I will point out the Pluto Neptune moon thingy)
Now if you wish to discuss expansion, conceder that the position you have taken ( well at least at one time in this thread) of plate tectonics. This was a widely held theory in the 50's but not so anymore. Further to this is Subduction and conservation of mass. then to this add 620 million years of unchanged inertia moment. (citation). oh yea, accretion theory. Negligible, after planet formation.
It's not expanding. Unless you subscribe to comics artist Neal Adams work.
Citation:
Williams, G.E. (2000), “Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of the Earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit”, Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 37-59
I'm following the thread and Zarkov needs some help. 
Hello midwestern
Do you mean that Zarkov's crystal may be flawed?
Do you mean that Zarkov's crystal may be flawed?
Big time Montec. The idea of constant universal expansion isn't plausible. Where do you start and end? There already is a finite ending without adjustment.
QUOTE
The idea of constant universal expansion isn't plausible
indeed, really anthropogenic stupidity
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 18 2008, 10:19 PM)
indeed, really anthropogenic stupidity
Well go ahead and de-stupefy it for us zarkovski
you'd be a great sci-fi writer, its ashame none of your ideas are true.
QUOTE
its ashame none of your ideas are true.
LOL, just because earthlings only can look up their own assseses
they think all else is false
I can assure that nothing I post is untrue... that is why I laugh so much LOL
because y'all think science is written in stone
and of course your stone tablets are soooooooooooooo outa date.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 10:17 AM)
LOL, just because earthlings only can look up their own assseses
they think all else is false
I can assure that nothing I post is untrue... that is why I laugh so much LOL
because y'all think science is written in stone
and of course your stone tablets are soooooooooooooo outa date.
Idiot.
An expanding earth would be trivially detectable from GPS data, and the GPS data says it isn't, so, you're wrong.
QUOTE
Zarkov Posted on Today at 8:17 AM I can assure that nothing I post is untrue...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted on Today at 8:17 AM I can assure that nothing I post is untrue... |
Zarkov Posted on: Jun 17 2008, 07:07 PM Pluto "orbits" Neptune therefore Pluto is a moon of Neptune...
>and of course your stone tablets are soooooooooooooo outa date.
And dragging up some old idea from the 1950's says what about your Zarkyness?
And dragging up some old idea from the 1950's says what about your Zarkyness?
QUOTE
And dragging up some old idea from the 1950's
I am only being guided by math... simple
However there are many geologists that realise the Earth is expanding.....
but just as with plate tectonics ideas take quite a long time to be accepted, and for absolute proof (if there is such a thing) to be found.
To discount such ideas is foolhardy at the least or downright stupidity
Many theories in science are "brought from the dead"... and only the ignorant think it is all home and hosed.... which is exactly what the science propagandists wish you to believe..... no need to look anymore... WE know everything !!!!!
LOL, total fools, and even bigger fools follow... paul h, I see you standing in line
LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 02:18 PM)
I am only being guided by math... simple
However there are many geologists that realise the Earth is expanding.....
but just as with plate tectonics ideas take quite a long time to be accepted, and for absolute proof (if there is such a thing) to be found.
To discount such ideas is foolhardy at the least or downright stupidity
Many theories in science are "brought from the dead"... and only the ignorant think it is all home and hosed.... which is exactly what the science propagandists wish you to believe..... no need to look anymore... WE know everything !!!!!
LOL, total fools, and even bigger fools follow... paul h, I see you standing in line
LOL
That's right.
Go ahead, ignore me.
But the point remains - the GPS data says the earth ISN'T expanding.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jun 21 2008, 03:19 AM)
Go ahead, ignore me.
He's being doing that for months, but he's yet to realize it doesn't get him anywhere.
He's being doing that for months, but he's yet to realize it doesn't get him anywhere.
QUOTE
The GPS data says the earth ISN'T expanding.
LOL, some areas I live near go up and down feet... depending upon rainfall
Are you so stupid to think the earth remains static... and nothing moves ???
yes I think you are... I am now sure y'all are.
pathetic
Not one of you can conduct a scientific discussion..... no NOT ONE !!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 05:23 AM)
LOL, some areas I live near go up and down feet... depending upon rainfall
So you live on a canal boat, idiot.
So you live on a canal boat, idiot.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 05:23 PM)
LOL, some areas I live near go up and down feet... depending upon rainfall
Are you so stupid to think the earth remains static... and nothing moves ???
yes I think you are... I am now sure y'all are.
pathetic
Not one of you can conduct a scientific discussion..... no NOT ONE !!!!!!!!!!!
Oh geez.
I didxn't say it isn't moving, i said it isn't expanding.
spot the difference idiot.
QUOTE
i said it isn't expanding.
proof please, GPS is no proof. It expands rather slowly.....in earthling "time"
LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 07:19 AM)
It expands rather slowly.....in earthling "time"
..... as opposed to idiot "time".
..... as opposed to idiot "time".
OK I'll bite,,
Over the course of this thread you have never said how much that you think the earth is expanding, over what amount of time.
Perhaps you are only talking about 3 microns over 10,000 years.
Over the course of this thread you have never said how much that you think the earth is expanding, over what amount of time.
Perhaps you are only talking about 3 microns over 10,000 years.
Trippy, I support your claim GPS technology suggests earth is not expanding, nor is the universe. Zarkov is full of hot air and expanding, however.
QUOTE
Over the course of this thread you have never said how much that you think the earth is expanding, over what amount of time.
I have said 1% over the time it has taken for Earth to move from where Mercury is to where Earth is now.... in ?how many million years....
so in cosmic time it is rapid
in earthling time it is abysmally slow
The Moon is moving away from the Earth at cms/year ??/ the Earth from the Sun is a rather difficult determination...... where is the centre of the Sun or even its edge.
Y'all just just dumb people shouting to the deaf... I take no notice
Zarkov, your not making any sense.
Zarkmyster,
>The Moon is moving away from the Earth at cms/year ??/
That would be about 3.8 cms/year. Any 4th grader can google that,, So if we abysmal earthlings can come up with that, don't you think we would also know how much the earth has expanded if there had been any.
>The Moon is moving away from the Earth at cms/year ??/
That would be about 3.8 cms/year. Any 4th grader can google that,, So if we abysmal earthlings can come up with that, don't you think we would also know how much the earth has expanded if there had been any.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jun 21 2008, 02:18 AM)
I am only being guided by math... simple
However there are many geologists that realise the Earth is expanding.....
but just as with plate tectonics ideas take quite a long time to be accepted, and for absolute proof (if there is such a thing) to be found.
The expanding earth theory came out at the same time as plate techtonics.
About 60 years ago I think.
The saddest thing is that Zerkoff is so pathetic and lonely that he has to invent his stupid theories just to get attention. It's even sadder when you realise that he isn't even the stupidest person on physorg.
Try again Zerkoff. You aren't even any good at being the forum clown, you loser.
We aren't impressed.
- dud1's different-past theory renders Zerkoff's ideas merely inane
- philip86's insane posts make Zerkoff's drivel boring by comparison.
- Edward3 is a better whiner than Zerkoff
- coberst manges to be more inane than Zerkoff, so Flexi doesn't even manage that distinction
- einsteinear was a far better troll than Zerky, so he loses on this one too
- As pathetic a loser as Zerkoff is, Imagination had him beat there as well.
- Neil Farbstein even had Zerkoff beaten on being a lying fraudster
Try again Zerkoff. You aren't even any good at being the forum clown, you loser.
We aren't impressed.
QUOTE (N O M+Jun 23 2008, 02:26 AM)
The saddest thing is that Zerkoff is so pathetic and lonely that he has to invent his stupid theories just to get attention. It's even sadder when you realise that he isn't even the stupidest person on physorg.
Try again Zerkoff. You aren't even any good at being the forum clown, you loser.
We aren't impressed.
Don't forget that:
Zarkov has even been defeated by PhysOrg's "second string" line of idiots.
- dud1's different-past theory renders Zerkoff's ideas merely inane
- philip86's insane posts make Zerkoff's drivel boring by comparison.
- Edward3 is a better whiner than Zerkoff
- coberst manges to be more inane than Zerkoff, so Flexi doesn't even manage that distinction
- einsteinear was a far better troll than Zerky, so he loses on this one too
- As pathetic a loser as Zerkoff is, Imagination had him beat there as well.
- Neil Farbstein even had Zerkoff beaten on being a lying fraudster
Try again Zerkoff. You aren't even any good at being the forum clown, you loser.
We aren't impressed.
Don't forget that:
- Bruce Voigt's ramblings propel Zarkov's ideas into the realm of plausibility
- Samantha Hildreth and Mr. Robin Parsons were better at whining
- newton hands-down beats Zarkov at conspiracy theories
- deadbeat is better at being hypocritical
- Garry Denke is better at posting inane stuff
- Farsight is better at both claiming false victory in an argument and lying
Zarkov has even been defeated by PhysOrg's "second string" line of idiots.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 23 2008, 02:54 PM)
Zarkov has even been defeated by PhysOrg's "second string" line of idiots.
He might as well give up
He might as well give up
I love the numbers put up by Zarkov. Where the heck does he make this stuff up? I'm curious where he is.
Where the heck does he make this stuff up? I'm curious where he is.
According to accretion theory on the formation of "planets et al "in a Solar System
all cosmic bodies should be roughly the same age..
Now Mars is small.. and comparable to Mercury
Mars is cold and Mercury is hot.
Fission theory would assert that Mercury was relatively recently ejected from the Sun... whereas Mars was ejected billions of years ago
http://www.physorg.com/news134314248.html
Interestingly Mercury's landscape has prominent lobate scrapes (high ridge "walls" traversing the planet's surface) showing that the planets surface gravity has risen and fallen, causing these wrinkles when the surface was reasonably pliable.
Mathematical analysis shows that because of Mercury's eccentric orbit its surface gravity rises and falls.....
all cosmic bodies should be roughly the same age..
Now Mars is small.. and comparable to Mercury
Mars is cold and Mercury is hot.
Fission theory would assert that Mercury was relatively recently ejected from the Sun... whereas Mars was ejected billions of years ago
http://www.physorg.com/news134314248.html
QUOTE
MESSENGER data has also identified and mapped surface rock units that correspond to lava flows, volcanos, and other geological features. At the same time, the spacecraft's suite of instruments has confirmed an apparent planet-wide iron deficiency in Mercury's surface rocks.
MESSENGER's big-picture finding, says Robinson, is the widespread role played by volcanism. While impact craters are common, and at first glance Mercury still resembles the Moon, much of the planet has been resurfaced through volcanic activity.
"For example, according to our color data the Caloris impact basin is completely filled with smooth plains material that appears volcanic in origin," Robinson explains. "In shape and form these deposits are very similar to the mare basalt flows on the Moon. But unlike the Moon, Mercury's smooth plains are low in iron, and thus represent a relatively unusual rock type."
MESSENGER's big-picture finding, says Robinson, is the widespread role played by volcanism. While impact craters are common, and at first glance Mercury still resembles the Moon, much of the planet has been resurfaced through volcanic activity.
"For example, according to our color data the Caloris impact basin is completely filled with smooth plains material that appears volcanic in origin," Robinson explains. "In shape and form these deposits are very similar to the mare basalt flows on the Moon. But unlike the Moon, Mercury's smooth plains are low in iron, and thus represent a relatively unusual rock type."
Interestingly Mercury's landscape has prominent lobate scrapes (high ridge "walls" traversing the planet's surface) showing that the planets surface gravity has risen and fallen, causing these wrinkles when the surface was reasonably pliable.
Mathematical analysis shows that because of Mercury's eccentric orbit its surface gravity rises and falls.....
All cosmic bodies should roughly be the same age? Everyone and their dog knows this isn't true.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 3 2008, 02:00 PM)
Now Mars is small.. and comparable to Mercury
Mars is cold and Mercury is hot.
Fission theory would assert that Mercury was relatively recently ejected from the Sun... whereas Mars was ejected billions of years ago
I'm sure the fact that Mercury is 3.9x closer to the sun and therefore receiving 15x as much solar radiation as Mars has nothing to do with the temperature difference.
And when you're talking about a hot Mercury, are you including the dark side which can get as cold -180 °C, versus the coldest Mars temp of -113 °C?
So according to Fission Theory, one half of Mercury was ejected from the Sun much more recently than the other half, but which half depends on what part of the Mercury day we happen to be looking at.
Mars is cold and Mercury is hot.
Fission theory would assert that Mercury was relatively recently ejected from the Sun... whereas Mars was ejected billions of years ago
I'm sure the fact that Mercury is 3.9x closer to the sun and therefore receiving 15x as much solar radiation as Mars has nothing to do with the temperature difference.
And when you're talking about a hot Mercury, are you including the dark side which can get as cold -180 °C, versus the coldest Mars temp of -113 °C?
So according to Fission Theory, one half of Mercury was ejected from the Sun much more recently than the other half, but which half depends on what part of the Mercury day we happen to be looking at.
QUOTE
Mercury is 3.9x closer to the sun and therefore receiving 15x as much solar radiation as Mars has nothing to do with the temperature difference.
oh wow, I never thought of that !!!
you are really bark'n mad.....
Either try and understand the theory and the evidence or just stay outa my threads !
Thanks for that
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 3 2008, 04:13 PM)
oh wow, I never thought of that !!!
you are really bark'n mad.....
Either try and understand the theory and the evidence or just stay outa my threads !
Thanks for that
You must be referring to internal rather than external temperatures. Mercury is 1.38 times denser than Mars, reflecting the fact that it has a much higher iron ratio. It is the gravitational potential energy of iron settling to the core that keeps Mercury's interior warm and and the magnetic field going.
I do understand the evidence, which is why unlike you I'm not likely to come up with a theory so bogus it can be discounted in a single paragraph. There is nothing that makes this your thread, so live with it.
you are really bark'n mad.....
Either try and understand the theory and the evidence or just stay outa my threads !
Thanks for that
You must be referring to internal rather than external temperatures. Mercury is 1.38 times denser than Mars, reflecting the fact that it has a much higher iron ratio. It is the gravitational potential energy of iron settling to the core that keeps Mercury's interior warm and and the magnetic field going.
I do understand the evidence, which is why unlike you I'm not likely to come up with a theory so bogus it can be discounted in a single paragraph. There is nothing that makes this your thread, so live with it.
QUOTE
Mercury is 1.38 times denser than Mars, reflecting the fact that it has a much higher iron ratio. It is the gravitational potential energy of iron settling to the core that keeps Mercury's interior warm and and the magnetic field going.
show me the math idiot !
you sprout such conjecture with no evidence whatsoever....
bark'n madman !
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jul 3 2008, 08:54 PM)
show me the math idiot !
you sprout such conjecture with no evidence whatsoever....
bark'n madman !
Pot. Kettle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7489557.stm
>> Data from a flyby of Mercury in January 2008 show the planet has contracted by more than one mile (1.5km) in diameter over its history.
Scientists believe the shrinkage is due to the planet's core slowly cooling.
"And the data from the flyby indicate that the total contraction is at least one-third greater than we previously thought."
Just days after the pass, scientists revealed that they had found evidence of volcanic activity on the planet, previously hinted at by Mariner 10.
Further analysis of areas such as the Caloris basin, one of the Solar System's largest and youngest impact basins, found volcanic vents and evidence of "pyroclastic" debris blown from the volcano as it erupted.
Other areas contained circular structures with wrinkled edges, similar to structures seen on the Moon and Mars.
Scientists believe these are impact craters that have been filled with massive quantities of lava, possibly 2.7km (1.3miles) deep.
"That's a lot of lava," said Dr James Head of Brown University. "It shows the planet was really active in its early history."
Researchers believe the peak of activity could have been three to four billion years ago. >>>
Smaller than Mars and still has a molten core......
and supposedly as old as Earth.... LOL
oh I forgot, it is because it is closer to the Sun
silly me
LOL
Only planet in the Solar System with these "contraction" ridges that are over a kilometer high
I posted a partial analysis of Mercury's parameters in some thread here
and it stated that the value for gravity on Mercury almost doubles as Mercury follows its eccentric orbit of the Sun
These "gravity ridges" were formed when the crust was pliable.... not too long ago... soon after it was ejected from the Sun
natural contraction is total BS
This world's scientist will say anything that comes into their heads... what a bunch of losers this day and age produces..... LOL
>> Data from a flyby of Mercury in January 2008 show the planet has contracted by more than one mile (1.5km) in diameter over its history.
Scientists believe the shrinkage is due to the planet's core slowly cooling.
"And the data from the flyby indicate that the total contraction is at least one-third greater than we previously thought."
Just days after the pass, scientists revealed that they had found evidence of volcanic activity on the planet, previously hinted at by Mariner 10.
Further analysis of areas such as the Caloris basin, one of the Solar System's largest and youngest impact basins, found volcanic vents and evidence of "pyroclastic" debris blown from the volcano as it erupted.
Other areas contained circular structures with wrinkled edges, similar to structures seen on the Moon and Mars.
Scientists believe these are impact craters that have been filled with massive quantities of lava, possibly 2.7km (1.3miles) deep.
"That's a lot of lava," said Dr James Head of Brown University. "It shows the planet was really active in its early history."
Researchers believe the peak of activity could have been three to four billion years ago. >>>
Smaller than Mars and still has a molten core......
and supposedly as old as Earth.... LOL
oh I forgot, it is because it is closer to the Sun
silly me
LOL
QUOTE
"The dominant tectonic landforms on Mercury, including areas imaged for the first time by Messenger, are features called lobate scarps, huge cliffs that mark the tops of crustal faults that formed during the contraction of the surrounding area," explained Dr Solomon.
Only planet in the Solar System with these "contraction" ridges that are over a kilometer high
I posted a partial analysis of Mercury's parameters in some thread here
and it stated that the value for gravity on Mercury almost doubles as Mercury follows its eccentric orbit of the Sun
These "gravity ridges" were formed when the crust was pliable.... not too long ago... soon after it was ejected from the Sun
natural contraction is total BS
This world's scientist will say anything that comes into their heads... what a bunch of losers this day and age produces..... LOL
From little things bigger things grow
Asteroids...moons...planets.....suns
http://www.physorg.com/news134828202.html
"planetary structures" spun from rubble
just one mechanism that demonstrates fission theory.... with of course the ultimate being radioactivity
same processes big and small.
Asteroids...moons...planets.....suns
http://www.physorg.com/news134828202.html
QUOTE
outline a model showing that when solar energy "spins up" a "rubble pile" asteroid to a sufficiently fast rate, material is slung off from around the asteroid's equator. This process also exposes fresh material at the poles of the asteroid.
If the spun off bits of asteroid rubble shed sufficient excess motion through collisions with each other, then the material coalesces into a satellite that continues to orbit its parent.
If the spun off bits of asteroid rubble shed sufficient excess motion through collisions with each other, then the material coalesces into a satellite that continues to orbit its parent.
"planetary structures" spun from rubble
just one mechanism that demonstrates fission theory.... with of course the ultimate being radioactivity
same processes big and small.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7617031.stm
Accretion theory just exploded.... oh I C this planet was captured
LOL
QUOTE
A planet has been pictured outside our Solar System which appears to be circling a star like our own Sun - a first in astronomy.
Most of the potential exoplanets imaged to date have been seen orbiting brown dwarfs, which are dim - making it easier to detect companion objects.
The new planet is huge, with a mass about eight times that of Jupiter.
The star and its companion lie about 500 light-years from Earth.
The planet itself lies out at a great distance from its parent star: about 330 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
By comparison, the most distant planet in our Solar System, Neptune, orbits at about 30 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
Finding a planetary-mass companion so far from its parent star came as a surprise to the astronomers, and poses a challenge to theories of star and planet formation.
Most of the potential exoplanets imaged to date have been seen orbiting brown dwarfs, which are dim - making it easier to detect companion objects.
The new planet is huge, with a mass about eight times that of Jupiter.
The star and its companion lie about 500 light-years from Earth.
The planet itself lies out at a great distance from its parent star: about 330 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
By comparison, the most distant planet in our Solar System, Neptune, orbits at about 30 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
Finding a planetary-mass companion so far from its parent star came as a surprise to the astronomers, and poses a challenge to theories of star and planet formation.
Accretion theory just exploded.... oh I C this planet was captured
LOL
Zarkov what you are doing here.
1. Impact force of accumulated pressure into E geo-sphere is increasing day bay day and is minimal after each EB geo-transfer only.
2. If impact force of accumulated pressure within E geo-sphere is maximal a slowly EB geo-transfer can start without asteroid impact. Accumulated pressure forces within E geo-sphere produces periodic slowly EB geo-transfer approximately every 10,000-12,000 years evolution in between. If not so all the Earth has already exploded by accumulated pressure within E geo-sphere.
3. When impact force of accumulated pressure into E geo-sphere is not maximal, asteroid impact is detonator of rapid EB geo-transfer. Asteroid impact Produces disequilibrium between huge inner geo-forces (pressure forces) and is main reason of rapid EB geo-transfer.
After event into E geo-sphere has no accumulated pressure, starts next cooling cycle at the DE boundary, liquid masses little by little are changing aggregation state. This process needs about 10 % additional volume for solid masses. Defect of the volume step by step creates huge accumulation pressure within E geo-sphere. Now in the deep interior of the Earth is accumulating critical. Impact force of pressure has concentrated within E geo-sphere for 12,000 years. We have to wait next biblical flood soon. I don’t know source of Newton, 2060 year is near to the truth.
LAW of cosmogeological evolution (Cosmogeological Incresent Law):
(R1)3 is aproximately 9/10 (R2)3
R1 - is radius of space bodies to the liquid stage of geo-evolution when almost all geo-spheres have liquid conditions.
R2 - is radius of space bodies to the solid stage of geo-evolution, when all geo-spheres are in the solid conditions as well as the Moon.
1. Impact force of accumulated pressure into E geo-sphere is increasing day bay day and is minimal after each EB geo-transfer only.
2. If impact force of accumulated pressure within E geo-sphere is maximal a slowly EB geo-transfer can start without asteroid impact. Accumulated pressure forces within E geo-sphere produces periodic slowly EB geo-transfer approximately every 10,000-12,000 years evolution in between. If not so all the Earth has already exploded by accumulated pressure within E geo-sphere.
3. When impact force of accumulated pressure into E geo-sphere is not maximal, asteroid impact is detonator of rapid EB geo-transfer. Asteroid impact Produces disequilibrium between huge inner geo-forces (pressure forces) and is main reason of rapid EB geo-transfer.
After event into E geo-sphere has no accumulated pressure, starts next cooling cycle at the DE boundary, liquid masses little by little are changing aggregation state. This process needs about 10 % additional volume for solid masses. Defect of the volume step by step creates huge accumulation pressure within E geo-sphere. Now in the deep interior of the Earth is accumulating critical. Impact force of pressure has concentrated within E geo-sphere for 12,000 years. We have to wait next biblical flood soon. I don’t know source of Newton, 2060 year is near to the truth.
LAW of cosmogeological evolution (Cosmogeological Incresent Law):
(R1)3 is aproximately 9/10 (R2)3
R1 - is radius of space bodies to the liquid stage of geo-evolution when almost all geo-spheres have liquid conditions.
R2 - is radius of space bodies to the solid stage of geo-evolution, when all geo-spheres are in the solid conditions as well as the Moon.
QUOTE
huge accumulation pressure within E geo-sphere
indeed
another Moon eject some time
Zarkov your head is doing well!
The Earth was not destroyed by a lot of –EB– geo-transfers for 5 billion years and will not destroy by these forces as well. The Primordial Moon could be formed within embryonic stage; huge accumulation of super heavy nucleuses in the physical centre produces huge nuclear reactions and ejection of each primordial moon of a planet.
Hear is very difficultly to explain the book of modern cosmogeological theory (A4 format, 181 pages). If you have FedEx account I’ll send immediately without any additional payment.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/BOOK%20BY%20AUTHOR.htm
Good luck!
The Earth was not destroyed by a lot of –EB– geo-transfers for 5 billion years and will not destroy by these forces as well. The Primordial Moon could be formed within embryonic stage; huge accumulation of super heavy nucleuses in the physical centre produces huge nuclear reactions and ejection of each primordial moon of a planet.
Hear is very difficultly to explain the book of modern cosmogeological theory (A4 format, 181 pages). If you have FedEx account I’ll send immediately without any additional payment.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/BOOK%20BY%20AUTHOR.htm
Good luck!
to Models of globe of DM and Static prove 10 multiple downturn of a level of Ocean, process type (d-f)has proved presence of an ice domes in a zone of both Poles during time (a’-a), accordingly after process (a- follows process (b-b’) step thawing and disorder of an ice dome with Northern hemisphere, here is necessary to take into account the factor of Gulf Stream-the polished granite fragments on a surface and in a top layer of ground, process (b-b’)began at a level of Ocean of ~300 meter below –consequences fiords Norway and Grand Canyon ; process (a- the frozen animals of various kinds in the area Gobi and interrupted cycle of incubation dinosaurs in valley Auca Machuevo, DM- has proved the beginning of process type (a- in the winter months ,the vector of forces enclosed to weight of an ice dome in Northern hemisphere was summarized in the winter, and was subtracted with force of an attraction of the Sun in the summer ; for given time the information connected with DM and Static model of globes to treat events on continents during the stone, bronze and iron periods –differently does not allow Zarcov "Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet..."
follows process (b-b’) step thawing and disorder of an ice dome with Northern hemisphere, here is necessary to take into account the factor of Gulf Stream-the polished granite fragments on a surface and in a top layer of ground, process (b-b’)began at a level of Ocean of ~300 meter below –consequences fiords Norway and Grand Canyon ; process (a- the frozen animals of various kinds in the area Gobi and interrupted cycle of incubation dinosaurs in valley Auca Machuevo, DM- has proved the beginning of process type (a- in the winter months ,the vector of forces enclosed to weight of an ice dome in Northern hemisphere was summarized in the winter, and was subtracted with force of an attraction of the Sun in the summer ; for given time the information connected with DM and Static model of globes to treat events on continents during the stone, bronze and iron periods –differently does not allow Zarcov "Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet..."
I would like to add to this topic from a 2005 topic. ("do you think it is possible to predict earthquakes?")
So it seems to me that Zarkov's statements could very well be more on the side of possible than impossible. One (unproved) proof of it:
- Earthquakes release energy
- Earth is continually releasing energy by means of earthquakes
- The amount of energy and matter should be constant in a non emitting body such as earth
- A transformation of energy and matter should be taking place on and inside earth
- In tectonic theory, subducting plates (matter) are sinking under continents and matter is being transformed, denser and hotter as it sinks, while other plates float, ever higher above sea level, forming mountains, volcanoes, ashes, less dense and cooler as it rises.
- Energy "occupies" no space. Matter "occupies" space.
Is this complex equation possible in a non expanding earth?
Don't think so
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subdction Zone!
QUOTE
I think it is possible to predict earthquakes. First, a few doubtful concepts would have to be put aside. i.e. The belief in all continents being together on one side of the globe in the past (a physical impossibility if you ever saw an out of balance spinning car wheel) The belief in the globe being the same volume as in the past.(if everything in nature, stars, men, tomatoes are born to grow and decay, why not the earth?) The belief in chaos (Nature is perfect, makes no mistakes and is self-regulating, self-adjusting).
So it seems to me that Zarkov's statements could very well be more on the side of possible than impossible. One (unproved) proof of it:
- Earthquakes release energy
- Earth is continually releasing energy by means of earthquakes
- The amount of energy and matter should be constant in a non emitting body such as earth
- A transformation of energy and matter should be taking place on and inside earth
- In tectonic theory, subducting plates (matter) are sinking under continents and matter is being transformed, denser and hotter as it sinks, while other plates float, ever higher above sea level, forming mountains, volcanoes, ashes, less dense and cooler as it rises.
- Energy "occupies" no space. Matter "occupies" space.
Is this complex equation possible in a non expanding earth?
Don't think so
Regards from the Nazca Plate Subdction Zone!
QUOTE
"Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet..."
as is the case of Mars
from a cold core to asteroids...breakup of Mars is not too far away.
On Edit
http://www.physorg.com/news140965197.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Unfortunately once the core of a planet cools, the planet..." |
as is the case of Mars
from a cold core to asteroids...breakup of Mars is not too far away.
On Edit
http://www.physorg.com/news140965197.html
A new analysis of dust from the comet Wild 2, collected in 2004 by NASA's Stardust mission, has revealed an oxygen isotope signature that suggests an unexpected mingling of rocky material between the center and edges of the solar system. Despite the comet's birth in the icy reaches of outer space beyond Pluto, tiny crystals collected from its halo appear to have been forged in the hotter interior, much closer to the sun.
The result, reported in the Sept. 19 issue of the journal Science by researchers from Japan, NASA and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, counters the idea that the material that formed the solar system billions of years ago has remained trapped in orbits around the sun. Instead, the new study suggests that cosmic material from asteroid belts between Mars and Jupiter can migrate outward in the solar system and mix with the more primitive materials found at the fringes.
"Observations from this sample are changing our previous thinking and expectations about how the solar system formed," says UW-Madison geologist Noriko Kita, an author of the paper.
QUOTE
To their surprise, they found oxygen isotope ratios in the comet crystals that are similar to asteroids and even the sun itself. Since these samples more closely resemble meteorites than the primitive, low-temperature materials expected in the outer reaches of the solar system, their analysis suggests that heat-processed particles may have been transported outward in the young solar system.
accretion theory is naive and simplistic... and can no longer be considered even remotely correct.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.