Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - Tell me why Hydrogen aggregates at the cores of our Gas Giants? Jupiter Saturn etc?If the outer core is dense Plasma and NOT IRON Based Mantle. Gravity reverses and UP is DOWN. Try not to make pronouncements about the unknown especially when the FACTS contradict it! Much is being learned about various stages of solid hydrogen!

scienceminded Says:

May 29, 2012 - Pop in my name in the comments. or look at the alternativephysicist website. I'm not ready to pass judgement on either that site's author or Neal yet, but I think physics has at least matter antimatter annihilation wrong in that it doesn't remove the mass from the equation, it creates dark matter, zero charge, double mass particles. If it's the 'prime matter' he puts forth I highly doubt, but a better explanation it could be for why gamma rays just spontaneously pair produce & isotopic decay.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - Personally I think if Dirac were alive, he would agree with ME. If there is a Positron and Electron split by energy, then the OBJECT before split would be a Prime Matter Particle containing both Electron and Positron. This is as clear and simple as first grade addition!

Serbiaaaaaaaaaaaa Says:

May 29, 2012 - i really think that you are an intelligent man and i like that you're thinking outside the box, but i don't know what would make me believe your theory counter to 100 years of scientific research. call me stubborn, but there is too much evidence to knock down with one theory. matter cannot be created or destroyed, i learned that in my 6th grade science class. Quarks have been experimentally observed under high power microscopes, are you telling me that scientists are lying to us about that too?

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - Rarely do people pass on lies with evil intent. My doctor said a drink a day couldn't hurt me. But suppose I have a long period of Business tension. Was that good advice?Evidence? I deal with FACTS, one cannot trust theories. They are first to crumble in the face of new FACTS!MATTER cannot be created? How then did we get a MATTER UNIVERSE? By what PROCESS? THIS,..this is REAL!Quarks? We know how we get Electrons and Positrons. HOW do we get quarks?Quarks cannot exist on their own. Lies?

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - You THINK there are theories that are presented counter to mine. There ARE NOT!Sounds funny to say. There are no over all theories anywhere in science.Each has many weaknesses. and no one believes any of them!

rockoman100 Says:

May 29, 2012 - I think he is onto something, but I don't think the right word is "growing". Perhaps, expanding.

scienceminded Says:

May 29, 2012 - They aggregate around the core as far as any evidence of their interior composition goes, and what's more they are still the lightest and upper most elements in the atmosphere by density. FACTS are sparse on the composition and conflating the gas giants to the small rocky Earth is not a very useful comparison.IF the out core is X, then Y. Try not to make pronouncements about the unknown when there are no facts to interpret.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - There is no such PHYSICAL PROCESS as "EXPANDING" without adding another force, (thermal, chemical. etc.) You will not find it in any textbook save "Expanding Universe." which is IMPOSSIBLE unless there was an explosion. EXPLOSION is NOT a concept that Physicists currently accept.GROWTH is then the only remaining possibility. I am not offended but it can never be "EXPANDING"! No such thing exists.

scienceminded Says:

May 29, 2012 - I never said it was random, I was saying random production in the standard model is probably wrong.Lightning produces gamma rays, gamma rays interacts with your Prime Matter or Bruce Harvery's Dark Matter and splits into complementary particles. Without experimental evidence to demonstrate either though it becomes a topic for another day. If we'd measure the mass of antimatter by it's gravitational effects and annihilated it, yet mass did not change, Prime Matter field would be redundant.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 29, 2012 - I have FACTS. YOU have supposition. 1.The larger the Gas giants, the MORE HYDROGEN at the core2. The Earth's core is super HEATED, beyond understanding.3. H to He is the logical source of the Heat.4. As if to support the H to He at the core is the trapped Helium in gigantic sealed caverns. It shouldn't be there otherwise. There is no evidence of heavier atoms at the core, but rather distributed throughout the ?upper? earth.You have ...nothing. Even Iron is at the surface

scienceminded Says:

May 29, 2012 - And if Bruce Harvey is right others have speculated that radioactive decay would be the source of your positron within the proton biz as well, instead, a dark particle would approach isotopes and give up one positron, eject an electron and a gamma ray and explain decay rather nicely as well. I still love it that we're in an age, and hopefully never aren't, in which competing theories can still exist for some of the most widely manipulated physical phenomena.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 30, 2012 - With apologies, but your usage is baffling to me. "Complementary Particles" for example."Topic for another day" Totally eludes me. Why is that? Do you expect a message of importance on this topic next Wednesday?As to MASS. If I say I am MAKING ICE, and you say , no you are not making ICE, but WATER in a solid form. there can be no discussion. If before there was NO MATTER and NOW there is MATTER,.. then MATTER has been made.I prefer straight talk, sir.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 30, 2012 - Radioactive decay is NOT the source of Positrons. Pair-Production IS and it was first observed in 1932.In Positive Beta Decay a Positron is thrown off, but I have explained the Electron AND Positron(S) were there from the beginning and are constituants of the FRADULENT Quark. Having a Positron, already there, pop out and calling it CREATION, is, with apologies, Nonsense.

Bug Stomper Says:

May 30, 2012 - AND why would 'NEW MATTER/Atoms' be made? What's causing more matter to appear at the core?

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - The Earth's core is measured indirectly, we don't have any direct temperature readings. Latest estimate is about 5,430 °C, however at the density of the Earth at that depth iron is still solid or liquid, not plasma. Your hand waving around energy conservation is annoying and unsupported.

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - Context my friend. I said it explained why isotopic decay produces a positron, like Sodium-22 decay. How a dark matter could in fact, as Bruce Harvey proposes, be the invisible and massive particle responsible for the phenomenon of pair-production. Pair-production also means there is conserved energy. Where does the first impetus for pair-production occur if not gamma rays? Where did the first gamma ray come from?

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - Actually there is another source of helium and it comes from decay of radioactive isotopes. So both you and the standard model...agree. Yep, helium trapped in caverns. FACT.

nealadamsdotcom Says:

May 30, 2012 - OOOOh,, "hand-waving" Was that a Geology class teacher? "Hand-waving". I never understood that one.The outer core carries the Earth's MAGNETIC FIELD, Iron is good. Plasma is BETTER!The temperature under the dense solid mantle is 6,000 to 9,000˚ F Iron Vaporizes at 5,000 ˚ F. Why hasn't the outer core become solid after 4.5 BY????? If it's iron? More, IRON at the core assumes Differentiation. Why then is there so much iron up here?

Joey4rox Says:

May 30, 2012 - For a nice seismic tomographic image of subduction in the Eastern Pacific (South America), seeContreras-Reyes, E. Grevemeyer, I., Flueh, E.R., Reichert C. (2008) Upper lithosphere structure of the subduction zone offshore of southern Chile at 38 S. Journal Geophysical Research 113, B07303 DOI:10.1029/2007JB005569.I personally like the notion of H in the core, but I think it's primordial.

ozwasp Says:

May 30, 2012 - The Yilgan craton is around 3 billion years old and there aren't any fossils on it. So how is India different to have sea sediments?

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - Up here? I assume you mean the iron deposits we use? As in iron oxides. Not metallic iron, which is much denser and virtually unseen on the surface of the earth. Why does gold or any other material exist in anything other than a perfect layering based on density? Because differentiation works on liquids. Liquid minerals often move to the surface through upthrust from the inner mantle, or volcanoes. Plasma is 'better'? Not at matching seismic wave analysis suggesting a solid core or iron density.

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - HAHAHAH what? Higher pressure increases the temperature required for phase transitions. It won't be a gas. The Clausius--Clapeyron relation calculates this for iron. The core IS freezing at about 100 degrees Celsius per billion years, expansion of the solidifying iron makes the inner core larger by about a centimeter every 1000 years. This process of expansion generates a little heat itself.But what math says it should be solid? It's still getting heat from untold tons of radioactive minerals.

scienceminded Says:

May 30, 2012 - And NO, gas giants do not have more hydrogen at thier core the larger they are. Who or what in the hell are you citing for this assumption? Estimates of Jupiter's composition are 71% hydrogen, 24% helium and 5% other elements by mass. Current theory predicts it has a rocky inner core. Not hydrogen. It's a gas, why would the lightest gas accrue at the core? The Sun's core has hydrogen and helium, but that is also where it keeps any heavy elements that don't get moved away by convection.