Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Unless acted on by an external torque, or, I would add, break. External, hmmm, let me see, oh yes, the moon is external, right? And if it came into contact with the earth, why, it could be that torque, or break. I sure would not have wanted to live on the coast when that happens

We can project the moon's orbit back in time and deduce it was once much closer to Earth, right after it formed billions of years ago. The most popular theory for the moon's formation is an impact with a Mars-sized proto-planet named Theia.

Another collision with another Mars sized object might reverse the direction of Earth's rotation, but such speculation is useless for the argument you're trying to make because that type of collision generates enough heat to melt rock and it would erase the details in the Earth's geology you're trying to explain.

Not only that but a second such collision would likely create another moon like the first one did, and you might notice we only have one moon, despite the false claims in a new ATS thread earth has a second moon, it doesn't, at least not one large enough to be evidence of a collision large enough to reverse the Earth's rotation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

We can project the moon's orbit back in time and deduce it was once much closer to Earth, right after it formed billions of years ago. The most popular theory for the moon's formation is an impact with a Mars-sized proto-planet named Theia.

Oh, so this is a popularity contest? How on earth, or moon in this case, can you track the moon back 4.5 billion years, and even be remotely accurate? Well, I suppose someone imagined it, and since it was popular, it must be correct.

Mankind's memories only go back so far, before that time, we haven't a clue. Well, I gave you two clues, but I guess since I didn't imagine the scars, and they are not popular, they must be wrong.

Not only that but a second such collision would likely create another moon like the first one did, and you might notice we only have one moon, despite the false claims in a new ATS thread earth has a second moon, it doesn't, at least not one large enough to be evidence of a collision large enough to reverse the Earth's rotation.

Now, now you see what you just did? "create another moon like the first one did". Your turning theory and assumptions into fact.

Arbitrageur, please don't misunderstand me, I don't wish to bash anyone here on ATS, but for Gods sake, will someone stop teaching assumptions as facts? When did Common Core infiltrate science????

I never stated I thought the moon came crashing into the earth. I suggested the D*nm thing was piloted by intelligence. It made intentional contact, with a agenda.

Now, for the rest of the story, as unpopular as it may be........

Practically every square mile of the far side of the moon is covered with craters while the side facing us has smooth areas covering many thousands of square miles with no craters. The mainstream explanation for this is that at one time millions of years ago the moon was volcanically active and lava flowed out over the surface to cover the craters. Don’t you think that if the moon was volcanically active that there would be more of an atmosphere on the moon? One more thing, where are the volcanoes?

Our moon has a diameter of 2,160 miles and a gravity of .17 that of earth-this according to Thomas J. Glover’s Pocket Reference. NASA’s more accurate moon gravity figure is 1.623 with a current orbital speed is 19,051 miles per hour-that is if the earth were standing still and not rotating. The moons density is 3.34 times an equal volume of water while earth’s average density is 5.5 times that of an equal volume of water. The fact that the Moon is only 60 % as dense as Earth has led scientists to two theories: that the Moon is without an iron core, and/or, that it is partially hollow.

No Moon prior to 11,713 years ago.

The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon.(1) Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth; for this reason they were called Proselenes.(2)

Plutarch wrote in The Roman Questions: “There were Arcadians of Evander’s following, the so-called pre-Lunar people.”(4) Similarly wrote Ovid: “The Arcadians are said to have possessed their land before the birth of Jove, and the folk is older than the Moon.” (5) Hippolytus refers to a legend that “Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon.”(6) Lucian in his Astrology says that “the Arcadians affirm in their folly that they are older than the moon.”(7)

Censorinus also alludes to the time in the past when there was no moon in the sky.(8)

The Earth Without the Moon

Some scientists believe that the Moon was not always the Earth’s satellite. German astronomer Gesterkorn thinks that the Moon’s age is approximately equal to one half of the Earth’s age. In his opinion, after the Moon was created, it orbited far away from the Earth. A space object flew near the Moon, which caused the moon to change its orbit. The Moon moved closer to the Earth and became “imprisoned” by the Earth’s gravity. Then, the Moon became the master of Earth’s waters. The Moon’s approach resulted in immense tides, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes. Waves were the height of mountains, volcanoes were erupting, and water was boiling. Probably, the new satellite was the reason for the Great Flood.

Before the Flood, There Was No Moon

I love to read, how about you? Maybe history should be revisited?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Before the Flood, There Was No Moon

Which flood?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Before the Flood, There Was No Moon

Which flood?

I'm glad you asked. It seems throughout our history, starting about 70 -75 million years ago there have been not only flooding events, but also debris hitting our planet. They seem to come in cycles, though I haven't been able to tie that down, except maybe the larger ones hit every 20 21 million years. But in saying that, we may have gone through the worst of it already.
From the link above.

The Moon’s approach resulted in immense tides, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes. Waves were the height of mountains, volcanoes were erupting, and water was boiling. Probably, the new satellite was the reason for the Great Flood.

I would guess the last one, some 11 12 thousand years ago was actually caused by the planetary adjustment, even though the ocean floor below the scars dates to around 10 20 million years. Again, if a object the size of the moon were to dip into our oceans and retard the rotation of the planet, the oceans would continue in the direction of rotation, leave their beds in very destructive ways. It would appear as though the planet was flooding. And for all intent and purposes, it was.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Never mind.
I forgot how silly you are.

Welp, this thread haz gone to zer madness place. Silliness abounds and science has gone out of the window.

Why does anybody keep posting on this thread?

I will not respond to any reply here!

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Before the Flood, There Was No Moon

You're citing sources of mythology and fiction. There are reasons why science is preferred to those, it's a more reliable source of information.

The moon capture hypothesis was considered along with several other hypotheses for the moons' formation, but these various hypotheses were compared to the available evidence and on that basis, the capture hypothesis and several others were rejected.

I didn't find any information about the German astronomer Gesterkorn mentioned in your source who favored the capture hypothesis or when he favored it. Ever since moon rocks from the Apollo mission were analyzed, their similarity to rocks in the Earth's crust suggested that the moon didn't form elsewhere as the capture hypothesis posits.

Your turning theory and assumptions into fact.

No I called it a theory but like many theories there is evidence to support it. I'm not saying it's fact. However, the facts we DO have from analysis of moon rocks etc do tend to rule out the alternate hypotheses. So it is actually you who are making assumptions that people haven't already done a lot of analysis on these alternate hypotheses, when in fact they have, and they are using the available facts in their analysis, something you and your sources are sorely lacking.

Center for Lunar Origin and Evolution

Throughout history scientist have dealt with the question of how our Moon was formed. There have been several proposed theories and hypotheses. They all at some point have been disfavored because evidence has shown that they couldn't possibly be the explanation of how our Moon formed. The first theory is the great capture theory, which states that the Earth captured the Moon, the second theory is the co-accretion theory it states that the Earth and Moon formed at the same time, the third theory is the fission theory which states that the Moon was part of the Earth and at some point in time it broke off. The last and final theory is the most commonly accepted by all scientists; it is the giant impact theory. This theory states that a Mars-sized object collided with our Earth and from the debris of the collision, our Moon formed becoming Earth's only natural satellite. The Apollo missions also had a great deal in the discovery of which one was the most accepted theory. Every time one of these missions was performed, evidence was brought back that seemed to prove one of the other three theories wrong...

As this article shows science is never easy, there are always many theories and hypotheses that have to be meticulously studied until the right one is found. Who would think there is so much work that goes into finding out information about our only natural satellite? The Moon is something great that will never quite be understood and for now the only accepted explanation is the giant impact theory.

So it's not just "an assumption", a lot of work went into evaluating the various alternative explanations, which we can add to the list of subjects about which you know next to nothing.

I love to read, how about you? Maybe history should be revisited?

If you like to read that's good, but it also helps to have at least some critical thinking skills to be able to separate fact from fiction because the internet is full of garbage claims, so if those are all you read, that's what's going to fill your mind


www.youtube.com...

There was an awful lot of rubbish in the last two sources you posted, which display even more ignorance of the subject matter than you do, a feat which is not easy to accomplish.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First let me point this out

the facts we DO have from analysis of moon rocks etc do tend to rule out the alternate hypotheses

You have rocks, that's it. That is all you have. It is a massive assumption that those rocks are lunar and originated on the moon, or for that matter, any rocks, anywhere.

You can see the meteorite impacts on the moon. Those impacts created debris not only of the under surface of the moon, but also of what ever impacted. How can you ever tell one from the other, or their true origins. And the same for the earth. You can never tell what rocks belonged here and what came from somewhere else, or in what amounts. A safer bet is bedrock, undisturbed. Your "Evidence" may, and probably is, contaminated....

The logic is, anything found on earth, must come from earth, with one exception, that of metallic meteorites. It must be reconsidered!

From your source

As this article shows science is never easy, there are always many theories and hypotheses that have to be meticulously studied until the right one is found. Who would think there is so much work that goes into finding out information about our only natural satellite? The Moon is something great that will never quite be understood and for now the only accepted explanation is the giant impact theory.

So therefore, all theories must be examined, to be honest. And the case of the moon, is far from closed. Even the "Rubbish", must be examined! I encourage all interested in any subject to Read all materials involved, not just the materials that have been cleared for publication. Don't let anyone "Strain" your information for you. You, do not have to accept or reject anything because, its popular!

What are some of the other theories? All of the above theories start with the premise that planets come together in a swirling dust cloud. Evolved if you will. Then so too must the moon. Science has been infiltrated by this mindset for some, Ungodly, reason.

Two mindsets, Creation, or Evolution. You, the general public and professionals alike are dissuaded from considering it a Creation. Evolution requires just, things happened, no intelligence involved, that is the real reason they refuse to see the scars in that light. It doesn't fit in with the Evolutionary mindset.

Creation? Hmm, lets have a look.

Many people believe that the moon does not rotate, since the face of the moon is always facing the earth. But this is NOT TRUE!!. The moon rotates at exactly the PERFECT speed to keep the face pointing at the earth as the moon rotates in orbit. Furthermore, even though the moon's orbit is steadily increasing in distance from the earth year after year, the rotation of the moon slows at just the right decay to keep the face pointed directly at the earth as the orbit slows. The chances of this happening are impossible.

Our Moon is an Artificial Space Station ~~~ PROOF!!! 135 stars, it must be popular

In July 1970, two Russian scientists Mijail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, published an article in the Soviet magazine Sputnik entitled “Is the moon a creation of extraterrestrial intelligence?”

They advanced the theory that the moon is not a completely natural object, but a planetoid that was excavated eons ago in the depths of space by intelligent beings with a technology superior to ours.

As for the theories suggested that Earth “naturally captured” the Moon, Isaac Asimov states:

“The Moon is too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture, after which the moon adopted a nearly circular orbit around the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Earth’s Moon: A Perfect Artificial Construction, Too Good To Be True

Despite six visits announced by US astronauts between 1969 and 1972, the Moon remains an enigma for scientists in many aspects. The solutions to these riddles may indicate an alien aspect of our familiar Moon. Called “the Rosetta Stone of the planets” by Dr. Robert Jastrow, the first president of NASA’s Commission of Lunar Exploration, scientists hoped to understand the composition and formation of the moon and solve some of the mysteries of how our planet and solar system came into existence. However, six lunar landings later, science writer Earl Ubell said: “… the Moon remains a mystery.

If the Earth and the moon were created at the same time, close to one another, how come one body, the Earth has great amounts of Iron, while the other body, the moon, has very little of it. Astrophysicists are unable to explain exactly how the moon became a satellite of Earth.

Magnetized moon rocks were found, not strong enough to pick up a clip but they were nevertheless magnetic in nature. But, there is no magnetic field on the moon, so where did the magnetism come from?

The Moon, an artificial base; Who put the moon in a perfect orbit around Earth?

You like pretty pictures?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Arbitrageur

First let me point this out

the facts we DO have from analysis of moon rocks etc do tend to rule out the alternate hypotheses

You have rocks, that's it. That is all you have. It is a massive assumption that those rocks are lunar and originated on the moon, or for that matter, any rocks, anywhere.

Versus what you have which is wild speculation based in ignorance.

science.nasa.gov...

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue.

Some of the moon rocks do have evidence of micrometeorite impacts and of course we collect meteorites on Earth to analyze the composition of extraterrestrial objects to compare them to the composition of Earth rocks, so we're not ignorant about the composition of extra terrestrial or extra-lunar rocks. The people who study these things can tell the difference, and just because you don't know how doesn't mean nobody else can.

So once again you accuse others of making assumptions, but the biggest assumption is yours, that they don't have lots of evidence supporting their analysis about which rocks are from the moon.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Versus what you have which is wild speculation based in ignorance.

Really? Really?

Experts were even more surprised about the moon when lunar rocks were found with traces of bronze, mica, amphibole and almost pure titanium. According to the Argonne National Laboratory, uranium 236 and neptunium 237-elements that were not previously found in nature-were discovered in moon rocks. Scientists were baffled when they discovered the presence of rustproof iron particles in a soil sample from the Sea of Crises.

www.ancient-code.com...

Apparently the moon is a terraformed, engineered piece of hardware, with a 3 mile thick outer layer of dust and rock, which has, below this layer, a thick solid shell of around 20 miles made of highly resistant materials such as titanium , uranium 236, mica, neptumium 237. Not what you would expect to find “inside” the Moon.

www.ancient-code.com...

Obviously, I have a problem with Science being able to penetrate this depth of the moon, but then, there is no obvious reason to doubt this.

If the above is true, then the present theory of its creation is bankrupt. You seem to think I don't take scientific results into consideration. I do, I just question them. You seem to think everything I bring to the table I believe, I don't, but then again I will not be lead around by as nose ring either.

The only assumption I make, is we don't know jack!

Science says the moon is hollow because it rings like a bell. Should I believe this? Considering the rest of the oddities concerning the moon, why cant it be. Oh, but Newton says, yep, okay.........

A direct question to you, Is the moon hollow!

Yea, I can read your answer already. "I will not answer that question because" Well, its anyone guess what you will come back with...

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Science says the moon is hollow because it rings like a bell.

Science doesn't say the moon is hollow. It says that without water to dampen seismic vibrations like Earth has the vibrations continue longer.

The claim that the moon is an artificial satellite in your source is an extraordinary claim with no evidence to back it up. The seismic evidence only indicates the moon is relatively dry, not hollow. But I don't suppose it makes sense to explain the science which you can find yourself but will ignore so you can latch on to some crackpottery from sources like "ancient-code.com".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Science doesn't say the moon is hollow. It says that without water to dampen seismic vibrations like Earth has the vibrations continue longer.

Science did say it was hollow in 1962, prior to the 1965 Royal society launching of the Common Core Science.

1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, “If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon be less dense than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.”

Are you going to call a NASA Scientist, a crackpot?

The seismic evidence only indicates the moon is relatively dry, not hollow.

And again, the moon has water. 32 ounces per ton, isn't bad. I'm sure that is only a guess. But I guess water really has little impact, if were a solid object. I bet a solid asteroid wouldn't ring like a bell.

It's Official: Water Found on the Moon

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If he said the moon was an artificial satellite like your source, then yes he was a crackpot, but I don't know what he said because you didn't provide any verifiable citation. In the 1960s we knew the approximate density of the moon was more dense than rock so there was no reason to presume that the moon was hollow, so if he proposed that maybe he was just bad at math. The assumption by some even in the 1960s was that the moon simply had a smaller iron core than Earth which would account for the density difference.

However in the 1960s before the moon rocks had been analyzed, I don't think anybody had come up with the giant impact idea yet, that's something that was thought up in the 1970s to try to fit the observations of the moon rocks.

When you dig up old sources of ideas based on incomplete or missing data and ignore what we've learned since then it makes you look quite foolish. You kept bringing up hollow earth ideas that scientists abandoned centuries ago and now you're trying to bring up claims about the moon from before we gathered samples of moon rocks. If the data don't fit your "against the mainstream" theories, you just ignore it and dig up some old sources that weren't aware of all the data we have today. However I never heard any scientist claim the direction of the Earth's rotation changed, you just made that one up?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

However I never heard any scientist claim the direction of the Earth's rotation changed, you just made that one up?

Correct, no one is saying the earth used to rotate in the opposite direction. Its a observation of the direction of the scars at the Mariana and Sandwich island debris buildup. The end of the breaking action of the spherical object. Both piles are to the right of the scars. If you break hard, locking up the tires, skid, in a car on a muddy road you will find a buildup in front of the front tires. This is how I view these marks. And it appears since the buildup is to the right of the actual skid mark, it must have meant that the planet was rotating in the opposite direction. Hence, the sun rising in the west. And please don't try to say I infer Automobile tires are responsible, geesh....

Of course, if you were educated into the subduction/ evolution, mentality, you may have trouble seeing the effect. Though, I am not a strict creationist, these marks do suggest it was accomplished by a very technologically advanced, power, or intelligence, and with design. Making it up? No, just alternative view from observations.

It would be so helpful if politics were removed from science. And as you may have gathered by now, I am quite politically incorrect when it comes to science.

When you dig up old sources of ideas based on incomplete or missing data and ignore what we've learned since then it makes you look quite foolish.

I have brought up many points that went unanswered, or ignored.

How about we talk about the content of those rocks on the moon. Or shall we be politically correct, and ignore the bronze, mica, amphibole and almost pure titanium, not to mention uranium 236 and neptunium 237-elements that were not previously found in nature.

If the moon came from the earth in your collision model, where the hell did those materials come from??? Again, my point, you cant answer that. Because no one can answer that, without making something up.... At least the scars are observable. I cant with any authority say that the object that caused those marks is above our heads, but I have a very strong suspicion that is the direction we should be looking at.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
I've seen no reliable peer-reviewed source from you documenting the differences between moon and earth rock composition. I'm not going to try to address made-up claims from unreliable sources but if you want to post a peer-reviewed paper explaining some differences you don't understand, I can let you know if I know of any explanation.

In spite of your lack of sources I'm aware of some differences between Earth and moon composition and the reasons for them.
The moon has a lower overall density due most likely to a smaller iron core which is consistent with the impact theory of the moon's formation.

The moon is thought to have more He3 than Earth, this article explains why: Helium-3 mining on the lunar surface

There is also a slight difference in the Tungsten-182 to Tungsten-184 isotope ratio between the Earth and moon which is consistent with the giant impact theory as explained here:

The Moon Was Formed in a Smashup Between Earth and a Near Twin

the "late veneer" hypothesis, which suggests that Earth and the proto-moon started with similar tungsten isotope ratios. Earth, being larger and more massive, would continue to attract more planetesimals after the impact, adding new material to the mantle. The veneer from those planetesimals would have had more tungsten-184 relative to tungsten-182, while the moon would have kept the ratio that dated from the impact.

"This looks like solid data," Fréderic Moynier, a cosmochemist and astrophysicist at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, says via email. "It fits with the present theory of late veneer, which is simply based on the elemental abundance of the siderophile elements (among them tungsten)

About your idea of the rotation of the Earth changing direction, it's fine to look at observations and try to explain them, but many things must be considered in doing so, including what's known about physics, such as conservation of angular momentum. The earth has a lot of angular momentum and you've proposed no plausible mechanism to reverse it. As I already said it would take something like a giant impact which would wipe out the features you're trying to explain so the idea makes absolutely zero sense according to what we know about physics.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Don't be silly; everyone knows earthquakes are the result of the turtle under us moving. On a more serious note, if something is making the Earth expand, wouldn't it also make the crust expand? (Think of a balloon: does the surface of a balloon experience quakes?)

a reply to: DJW001

On a more serious note, if something is making the Earth expand, wouldn't it also make the crust expand? (Think of a balloon: does the surface of a balloon experience quakes?)

I have used that balloon analogy in as far as the planet becoming larger, not in the earths actual composition, or the actual physical processes that are taking place..

The crust is comprised of layers of materials. Science The British Royal Institute (Royal (secret) society, and its brotherhood of henchmen) Assume what those layers are, with no real evidence to support their turtles. We know only what is 7.5 miles down, in one location on earth. Other drilling has been done in other areas.

The crust is generally between 600 - 800 miles thick, and it has been deduced to contain the center of the gravitational pull, rather than at the center of the earth. A fella by the name of Peter Woodhead recalculated the math and has convinced me of the same. He shows his math calculations as to how he did it in the following video.


Peter and I do not agree as to the mechanics of the expansion but at this point, expansion, we agree on many points.

Having gravity at the center of the crust in the model allows for the crust to actually compress itself, and balloon like, expand in a omin directional fashion. And since "Science" can not state with any real accuracy was is down there, they can also not state, what isn't, except maybe, giant turtles lol lol. I would suggest their might even be a healthy layer, of clay.... Which could give the rocky crust a bit of elasticity..

Thank you for your input. It was refreshing and helpful.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I've seen no reliable peer-reviewed source from you documenting the differences between moon and earth rock composition.

Reality, facts, evidence, theory, and even assumptions, are not the exclusive property of the peer review club. Science and the scientific method are not the property of the Royal Institute. If NASA scientists state something, with or without peer review, I'm going to listen. If you will only consider what has been peer reviewed as reality, then I would say, your vision of reality is quite narrow. The peer review process is nothing more than gate keepers, keeping things "politically correct".

The earth has a lot of angular momentum and you've proposed no plausible mechanism to reverse it. As I already said it would take something like a giant impact which would wipe out the features you're trying to explain so the idea makes absolutely zero sense according to what we know about physics.

I have addressed the process already. The " plausible mechanism " is above your head, but your limited physics and peer review politics do not allow you to see it. Its the " wipe out the features " that are the evidence! A whole isthmus wiped out, to the right. How much more blatant does it have to be? Actually seeing the moon dip down into the ocean??? Oh, you say, you can't even begin to imagine that unless you have read a peer review paper on the subject? Then you might say, well write a paper and submit it to the process. You already know the chances of that flying, its just not politically correct, or acceptable subject matter.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No. I'm going to have to stop you there. No, you have addressed nothing. All you have done has been to wave your arms a lot, introduce a lot of varied theories, demonstrate breathtaking ignorance of basic geological processes, deny clear evidence of subduction and generally made a complete fool out of yourself.