Birth of Earth

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by sureshbansal, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    i also feel lot of people in this discussion board just believe in insulting only. i was in impression if they insult i will get more energetic.because newton was also insulted so many times. people believe only that theoretical people can only success in discoveries only. they expect complete overhaul of engine without any instruments.so many time i convinced the people that i am without any instruments and support but they dont care just asking full proved theory.
    i mentioned lot of times that we should think in this direction that earth has biological growth like a tree.i have given complete mechanism of formation of planet and death.i have mentioned that meteoroids are seeds of planets out of very few can germinate in asteroids and out of very few can convert in big planet. pls pls try to understand the depth of this theory.
    it is very clear evidence that continents are separated from each other because globe is growing or expanding and upper skin is shrinking.same is happening with bark of tree.
    people must appreciate that a small business man has given such a fine complete mechanism theory for planet formation.this is itself a invention.
    very simple question pls. how different different pockets of minerals formed in same planet if it doest has biological growth.
    2. why all planets have some similar and particular shape.if big bang theory is correct how it taken shape.
    if accretion theory is correct how different different mineral possible on same planet.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    meteroids have neccessary amino acid neccessary for seeds . this is scientifically proved.this also indicates toward my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets out of very few can germinate in big planets.pls try to re think that earth has biological growth only
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cofu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    some decisions of problem which discussed here

    On site ( Space Odyssey planet the Earth ) a part of problems which are discussed here Dynamic model - has decided; thus publications in scientifically popular magazines are used, traces of processes of III natural phenomenon which were kept on continents
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    now lot of people belive that earth is growing.at last i wll be winner.
     
  8. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    i need some botanist site pls. i have to discuss some thing.
     
  9. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    but why do meteroids have seeds of plants ?

    in away it makes no sense

    how does a meteroid have the ability to have amino acids , for plant seeds , unless the meteriod was apart of a planet in the first place ?

    otherwise your implying that the meteriod can grow plants !!!
     
  10. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    meteroids are itselves seed of planets not plant
     
  11. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    pls read this topic thorowly and see the depth and reality.
     
  12. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I really don't want to make this sound too harsh but it's obvious that your lack of general scientific knowledge is greatly lacking. And I'll deal with just two small, simple aspects to demonstrate the huge gap in what you should already know but obviously do not.

    In one of your posts, you asked this: "2. why all planets have some similar and particular shape.if big bang theory is correct how it taken shape.
    if accretion theory is correct how different different mineral possible on same planet.

    The answer to the first question is "nothing more than simple gravitational attraction." Freely floating objects in space have a natural gravitational attraction for each other. That causes them to clump together. As the clump grows, it attracts even more material. And the form it takes will always be a sphere because all the material feels the strongest attraction from the center of gravity of the entire mass. Thus, there will never be things like long strings or cubes, etc. because that central point of gravitation will cause the loose material 'fold' or roll around in an attempt to get to the center. And the ONLY possible outcome of that is a sphere.

    The answer to the second question is just as simple. Stars are nuclear furnaces that convert hydrogen into increasingly ever-heavier elements through the process of fusion. Stars eventually 'die' and, in the process of dying, eject those elements into space in chunks - both large and small pieces of all sizes. And it is that ejected material which eventually, through the accretion process I just described in detail above, that forms the planets and contains all of the elements that were produced in the stars.
     
  13. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    than why shape of all asteroids is not same as per your theory.
    2. second answer is not clear to me . how different 2 pockets of minerals formed in single planet.
    third point is most of minerals available on earth also required by all living thing having biological growth like iron,zn,cu,salt etc.
     
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Evidently your reading comprehension skills are just too low. Because I explained clearly everything you are still asking here.

    And it's not MY "theory". It's a proven fact that scientists have known for a very long time. You need to do some serious studying to catch up with what most other people have known for years and years - you are WAY behind in your understanding of even simple things.

    Good luck with your studies.
     
  15. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    how earth if formed according to you. pls mention.
     
  16. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    you said when stars die it means earlier they were alive. what is meaning of alive.
    how different different pockets of minerals formed in earth is a single layer of earth according to accretion theory.
    why surface of earth is not smooth like a tennis ball if accretion theory is true. and why such material is not comming now.
     
  17. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Saying a star "dies" or is "alive" are merely expressions for it being "active" (burning/converting it's nuclear fuel) or "inactive" (when it has used up all it's fuel). The expressions are used in exactly the same was as when we describe a fire - as in the fire "dies" when it runs out of fuel.

    Because during the accretion process, the new planet is heated by all the collisions, becomes molten, and the materials tend to stratify - meaning they settle out in layers depending on their specific gravity (density or "weight", if you prefer).

    It's not smooth due to plate tectonics and volcanic activity - both of which are constantly rearranging the surface.

    And that material IS coming in now. Every singe year the Earth receives TONS of space debris in the form of meteorites and dust. Material, which again, was formed by dying stars that ejected it into space.
     
  18. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    according to you one mineral i mean iron is at same distance from center core of earth or cu at same difference from center core point of earth like this.
     
  19. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    pls examine this link with depth
    Core Crust

    http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89059_Taxus_wood1_122_572lo.JPG



    Asteroid and Plant

    http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89060_Asteoid_Plant_122_731lo.JPG&loc=loc731



    Seeds and Meteorids

    http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89066_metseeds_122_366lo.JPG



    Bark of Tree and Earth

    http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89071_pic_122_801lo.JPG



    Volcanoes


    http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89077_volcanoes-2_122_1119lo.JPG



    SUBDUCTION ZONE OF TREE SNAPS

    http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=38188_SUBDUCTION_ZONE_122_1064lo.JPG



    BARK OF TREE

    http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08810_tree_bark_122_1170lo.jpg&loc=loc1170
     
  20. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    from where this fuel is coming and how stoped coming of new fuel
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    A star is formed by the condensation of a rather dense cloud of hydrogen in a limited area of outer space. And when enough hydrogen has condensed that the pressure becomes great enough to initiate nuclear fusion, the star springs to "life." It's certainly NOT alive in a biological sense, though, that just means it's actively 'burning' nuclear fuel.

    It will gain an additional amount of fuel from it's surrounding during it's active period but eventually the amount near enough to be pulled into it will become depleted. And it takes *tremendous* amount every single hour to keep it active. So at some point in time, the supply is not sufficient to maintain it's active state. Much like a forest fire that eventually runs out of trees that it can reach to burn.
     
  22. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    i think all are guess only. we can not say anything scientifically till now even.all are assumptions only and we have to see which assumption is more correct and near.pls give your views.
     
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    No, the ONLY one making guesses and assumptions here is you. None of your cute little pictures prove anything, they are nothing but the result of your scientifically untrained imagination.

    On the other hand, the information I've presented to you IS supported by a huge volume of scientifically PROVEN documentation.
     

Share This Page