It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth Is Growing!? Watch These Videos!

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
That video is mindblowing, in a good way. heh heh, take that old text books from 1970 that i was reading in 1994 in elementary school!




posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Soz peeps, the earth is shrinking due to the fact that it is cooling down....
I



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I am surprised no one has considered that iron may be binding with the sun's rays which can create more matter (accretion). The cumulative results over a few billion years can be significant. I also propose that there must have been a weaker gravitational field because the core should have been much smaller. Now, if the core grew(from accretion of a few billion years) a stronger field from additional iron isotopes should be expected.

The fact that large dinosaurs thrived on this planet should be evident of a weaker magnetic/gravitational field during their age.



Originally posted by Lasheic
Another point to consider, which must be answered if this theory is to hold any validity. How do we have marine fossils on the tops of mountains? Continental Drift, which accounts for phenomena like subduction, explains this - as what was once the ocean floor is being pushed up by the collision of another plate. Expansion wouldn't allow for this.

And no... it wasn't a global flood. -_-


If the expansion model is true (I believe it is) there should be NO water at the beginning. There is only 1 place where all the water must have originated from and that is.. space. The oxygen in our atmosphere may have binded with the hydrogen of space during evolution.

The earth must have been flooded over 500 million years ago. This is long before dinosaurs even existed! Water may have condensed from our atmosphere & space therefore accumulated to a point where it covered most of the earth. Remember, even a snail can travel a great distance if given enough time. We are talking about different processes occuring over a few BILLION years.

The real question to ponder is; Where did all the water go? Perhaps, land growth caught up and passed the sea level at a constant rate. This can also mean less water condensation resulting from a possible different atmosphere and/or closer orbit to the sun.

Sometimes, I wonder how the sun may have ended up like the earth since it has a similar molten iron core(according to the liquid-plasma model www.thesurfaceofthesun.com... ). If it weren't for the heavy metals and fusion reactions that surround it, the sun would be vastly different.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


lol chickens cant b hatched on the moon



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Measurements of areas of sea floor broken up into age groups show that apparent areal global sea-floor spreading rates increase exponentially from Jurassic to Holocene time, proving that subduction has taken place in that time. The sea-floor spreading phenomenon is a coordinated global process where, at a given time, high spreading rates in one ocean basin are compensated for by low rates in another. Sea-floor spreading is symmetric within 15% over periods of 60 to 165 m.y. This study shows that both global sea-floor spreading and subduction rates have increased with the passage of time. It is estimated that during the past 165 m.y. sea-floor spreading exceeded subduction by 33%. This is interpreted as an increase of the Earth's surface area by expansion, which yields a Jurassic paleoradius of 5,668 km ± 13% (0.89 of the present radius). In spite of the high error margin, due to global extrapolation of subduction and spreading in the time dimension, an expanding earth is strongly indicated.


GeoScienceWorld


However, a small but persistent group of earth scientists argue that the spreading sea floors and wandering continents are best explained in terms of an expanding earth (Carey 1976, Carey 1983a, Carey 1988, Crawford 1986, Glikson 1980, King 1983, Owen 1983a, Steiner 1977). In its most radical form this model assumes that sea-floor spreading is entirely compensated by the increasing area of an expanding earth so that no subduction occurs (Carey 1976, p. 14; Carey 1988, ch. 13; Crawford 1986). Some variations on this incorporate modest subduction and collision along with the expansion of the earth (Owen 1983b). In spite of the fact that a number of times the expanding earth is said to have been discredited (Kerr 1987; Smith 1976, 1977, 1978; Wood 1979) the expanding earth remains as an alternative model to plate tectonics.


Geoscience research institute

The only reason I get involved in this debate is because of the scientific zealots it attracts, they come and claim pseudoscience and claim no real geologist would ever contemplate such a crazy idea.
When the exact opposite is true.

Along with that, throw in a few ad hominem attacks, and conform to consensus without knowing all the details and history. All too common here.

Can we say DOGMA?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by defendant
If I remember right, I thought, about twenty five years ago, they said the Earth was SHRINKING!
Now the Earth is GROWING! So are my socks!


Your socks are growing?


My socks are shrinking! Perhaps there are wormholes between our socks?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I'm looking at the ocean floor map, referred to the video and have since downloaded more high resolution maps.

I know that dino's had feathers and were built like birds so the gravity thing people have a hold on is out the door... but when did we find that out and how long was there an opposite argument. The world can't even agree on global warming OR cooling so people throwing facts back and forth just makes me sit back and wait for the nnext hard charging scientist to discover the next link.

What I haven't seen disputed though is the actual puzzle piece fittings of the entire earth. It matches ALL THE WAY AROUND. Even not looking at the video, you can easily put every piece together by following the tell tale stretch marks on the ocean floor.

Not looking at the author of the video, someone please tell me how Pangaea vs this theory wins out. it doesn't look like Pangaea would win. The age of the plates also hasn't been disputed.

Answer those two things for me in a concise manner and I'll shelve this once and for all.. otherwise I don't see a direct refute. Link me whatever.. Iv'e followed this for a while and have seen some brilliant arguments for either side but nothing has explained the way everything fits. With the distance between land masses coupled with the age of the sea flood and it's sections.. it just doesn't make sense.

b



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
What I haven't seen disputed though is the actual puzzle piece fittings of the entire earth. It matches ALL THE WAY AROUND. Even not looking at the video, you can easily put every piece together by following the tell tale stretch marks on the ocean floor.


I don't think Pangea is the only Super Continent ever to have existed, it's possible that the previous one could have made it look like this. Also, in the video, if you look closely at them he does overlap some things, particularly (small) islands. This is all very well, but while card may sit over other card, land masses do not work that way.

America seems in his video to not really move much, this doesn't explain East/West movement of Hot spot volcanism, eg Yellowstone, The Anahim Volcanic Belt. And with little or no subduction (according to him, it's not happening much since the pacific is growing, not shrinking), there is no explanation for any of the Ring of Fire.


Not looking at the author of the video, someone please tell me how Pangaea vs this theory wins out. it doesn't look like Pangaea would win. The age of the plates also hasn't been disputed.


The other problem with the expansion theory is that it needs the extra mass to come in and drive the expansion, as well as a lack of water apparent, unless all or most of the land is meant to be submerged at that point. Most life evolved in the oceans for a large proportion of time, so some explanation for this is definitely needed.

In addition, since this relies on the idea of the earth growing in the last 500 million years or so, some explanation of what the earth was doing for the previous 4 billion years of it's existence would also be handy.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

I don't think Pangea is the only Super Continent ever to have existed, it's possible that the previous one could have made it look like this. Also, in the video, if you look closely at them he does overlap some things, particularly (small) islands. This is all very well, but while card may sit over other card, land masses do not work that way.

You aren't really saying anything here. On a global scale, his words in the video were well placed by stating " some islands and land don't match up perfectly"
Erosion, sliding, exploding and whatever other natural phenomenon cosmetically changed the coastlines.. cosmetic is the keyword here. As a whole, the lines DO match up perfectly.. though after millions of years, the edges are a bit tattered.
But the SEAMS of the planet are very distinct and easy to follow.

A fine Anon ATS'r posted THIS LINK TO THE AGE OF OCEANIC LITHOSPHERE
I took the image on that link and made it a pattern.. it was easy of course, as all I did was copy paste and it fell together and makes a rather balanced pattern. A pattern that suggests, to me anyways, an even rate of expansion. Expansion is the only thing I can still think of given the age of everything. Looks like a boiling egg exploding.. I'm sure plenty here who eat Easter eggs have experienced similar issues...

I darkened the ice a bit so your eyes can see the colors better and without a hard interruption.



America seems in his video to not really move much, this doesn't explain East/West movement of Hot spot volcanism, eg Yellowstone, The Anahim Volcanic Belt. And with little or no subduction (according to him, it's not happening much since the pacific is growing, not shrinking), there is no explanation for any of the Ring of Fire.

What you are referring to here are mere pimples on the face of mother earth. If you really read the links you provided, they are chock full of phrases such as "thought to be".. meaning "they" or "everyone" don't actually know.. I say the volcanoes are pimples and that's about it. A bunch of "stuff" is coursing around under the crust and is finding places to pop out..
The Earth really is a dynamic place but you just can't erase the major seams and their age. Can anyone explain the age? I still haven't heard an answer for why there are MILLIONS of years difference from several points of the Earth from other several points of the Earth.. If you follow mainstream science, the youngest parts of the ocean should be the oldest since it's supposedly going 'back into the earth" to be regurgitated as lava.



The other problem with the expansion theory is that it needs the extra mass to come in and drive the expansion, as well as a lack of water apparent, unless all or most of the land is meant to be submerged at that point. Most life evolved in the oceans for a large proportion of time, so some explanation for this is definitely needed.


THE IRRADIATED CHICKEN HAS THE ANSWER!
A chicken is a true alchemist as the above link will show and this exerpt from it outlines:

He fed a chicken on oats alone, the calcium content of which he had carefully measured. He then checked the calcium content in both the eggs and faeces issuing from the chicken and found the bird had produced four times as much calcium as it had ingested.


Ok.. so the chicken doesn't explain much other than you can get something from nothing.. or actually it's possible to create elements from other elements.. an alchemist in feathers... those dern chickens. (makes me want to feed em gold.. maybe I can get 4 times as much gold back!)
which leads me to your next paragraph...



In addition, since this relies on the idea of the earth growing in the last 500 million years or so, some explanation of what the earth was doing for the previous 4 billion years of it's existence would also be handy.


What we do know is that the Earth is 5 billion years old. We judge age by the amount of radiation apparent.. or it's one scale at least. The younger the earth, the hotter and more radiated a place this was. How I see it is the Earth used to be a hot, magma laden and freaking horrible place to be. Now it's cooling down ( ice expands don't it? wink-wink) and instead of being a super hot, radiated and inhospitable landscape, the radiation is fading and the earth is now essentially a Petri dish that's cooled down enough to allow life to flourish.

Where does the mass come from you ask and is the golden question. With the loss of radiation, elements change just like the chicken.
enter:
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1938
This completely blows the door open to the investigation of what could possibly be happening within our Earth as time goes by.. Why do me have to be "creating mass" why can it not be "the mass is changing".. my thoughts are some crazy stuff is happening and the Earth is expanding because after billions of years of radiated existence, we're experiencing some sort of "radioactive decay" and expansion is a product of that.

Research tritium a bit .. it's an interesting subject. Finding out where the concentrations of tritium on this earth is coming from is where you might think if you fall into this train of thought. Doesn't mean anything though.. or does it ?

I'm looking a bit more into other radioactive decay issues but once you have an entire earth changing and decaying, the domino effect after that is in no way shape or form able to be analyzed by me


cool link to play with nuclear stuff..


Will the Earth "decay" further until we are a gaseous planet? Read about this on the Aerogel link in the site above.

Refute this at will btw.... I'm just an armchair researcher.

b


 


Replaced 'code' with 'ex' tags for external material (stretching page)



[edit on 13/1/09 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
What you are referring to here are mere pimples on the face of mother earth. If you really read the links you provided, they are chock full of phrases such as "thought to be".. meaning "they" or "everyone" don't actually know.. I say the volcanoes are pimples and that's about it. A bunch of "stuff" is coursing around under the crust and is finding places to pop out..


So, a large proportion of geologists aren't entirely sure, but allow it to be mainstream, that hotspots exist. As opposed to very few geologists who claim the earth to be expanding. So on that, since no one is really sure, maybe we should leave it. But since other than an upwelling of magma nothing really explains an island chain like Hawaii, it probably is that. And if it is a hotspot, this gives evidence of traditional plate tectonics occurring there, since otherwise why would it move?



Ok.. so the chicken doesn't explain much other than you can get something from nothing.. or actually it's possible to create elements from other elements.. an alchemist in feathers... those dern chickens. (makes me want to feed em gold.. maybe I can get 4 times as much gold back!)


Not entirely sure that source can be described as entirely legitimate, and since so far mainstream physics is unable to modify atoms on a large scale without beams of protons or fusion, I doubt a chicken can do it. More likely some sort of reaction to external environment or something going on there. I stopped doing biology a long while ago, so I don't really know entirely.



How I see it is the Earth used to be a hot, magma laden and freaking horrible place to be. Now it's cooling down ( ice expands don't it? wink-wink)


Ice expands due to the complex nature of covalent bonds causing dipoles on the atoms in the bond, the hydrogen gets a positive charge, while the oxygen gets a negative charge, creating a nice 3D pattern with big gaps in it, causing it to be less dense than water. Metals, and just about anything else that doesn't have a large dipole system, shrinks when it cools, rather than expanding.
Structure of Ice
Hydrogen bond


Refute this at will btw.... I'm just an armchair researcher.


As am I.

edit: failed to spell hydrogen.


[edit on 13-1-2009 by apex]

[edit on 13-1-2009 by apex]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by apexi]Originally posted by Bspiracy

So, a large proportion of geologists aren't entirely sure, but allow it to be mainstream, that hotspots exist. As opposed to very few geologists who claim the earth to be expanding. So on that, since no one is really sure, maybe we should leave it. But since other than an upwelling of magma nothing really explains an island chain like Hawaii, it probably is that. And if it is a hotspot, this gives evidence of traditional plate tectonics occurring there, since otherwise why would it move?

I've looked at the Hawaii issue before and following mainstream science, Hawaii is moving from a older land mass toward a younger land mass to be swallowed up and regurgitated.. How much sense does that make?,



Not entirely sure that source can be described as entirely legitimate, and since so far mainstream physics is unable to modify atoms on a large scale without beams of protons or fusion, I doubt a chicken can do it. More likely some sort of reaction to external environment or something going on there. I stopped doing biology a long while ago, so I don't really know entirely.

That's just the source I could find online in a pinch. The first i learned of it was actualy on the discovery channel about 6 months ago. I looked into a bit more after I watched the program that highlighted it and it's very true.



Ice expands due to the complex nature of covalent bonds causing dipoles on the atoms in the bond, the hydrogen gets a positive charge, while the oxygen gets a negative charge, creating a nice 3D pattern with big gaps in it, causing it to be less dense than water. Metals, and just about anything else that doesn't have a large dipole system, shrinks when it cools, rather than expanding.

yes, but what is the main concern everyone has here..water. If we're accumulating more water due to this expansion mumbo jumbo, then you are helping to support my theory.

It's all very interesting either way and I would love to get my hands on some Aerogel.

b



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
If expansion is the cause of plate movement, how did India get pushed into Eurasia to form the Himalayas? India was at one time, connected to East Africa, and even now there is a rift valley beginning to appear in E. Africa, and the Himalayas are still growing.
I for one am quite happy with tectonics + mantle convection as an explanation for moving lisotheric plates. On average they move as fast as your nails grow. If we can monitor such a small movement, I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed the Earth expanding.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
I've looked at the Hawaii issue before and following mainstream science, Hawaii is moving from a older land mass toward a younger land mass to be swallowed up and regurgitated.. How much sense does that make?,


If you mean that one day the island chain will go into a subduction zone, why doesn't that make sense?



yes, but what is the main concern everyone has here..water. If we're accumulating more water due to this expansion mumbo jumbo, then you are helping to support my theory.


But it doesn't make more water. Ice only takes up more volume than water does, and that is because of hydrogen bonds. Otherwise it would sink, rather than float. What it doesn't do is make more of itself.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   


It explains the mystery of how the Pterodactyls would've been able to fly. Less earth would've meant less gravity. This also explains the gargantuan size of everything during that time period.


From what I have read in the past, it was higher levels of oxygen that enabled animals to be much larger back then.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 




If you mean that one day the island chain will go into a subduction zone, why doesn't that make sense?

Because subduction means that the Earth is going into the Earth. If it's going in, why are the subduction zones younger? If a plate is pushing underneath another , wouldn't the area of subduction be older ? If not older, then it should be relatively the same age. That's not the case though. Instead, subduction zones are millions of years younger.. no sense to me at all.
"edited to add" : -- also, subduction zones would seem to have extremely different age differences where the point of subduction is happening.. I haven't seen an example of this yet.




If expansion is the cause of plate movement, how did India get pushed into Eurasia to form the Himalayas? India was at one time, connected to East Africa, and even now there is a rift valley beginning to appear in E. Africa, and the Himalayas are still growing.


dunno exactly of course but if the earth is expanding from a molten core, what is so hard to believe that the crust isn't expanding at a constant rate. If one portion of the earth has a greater molten content, the expansion from two different sides of the sphere would push less molten masses together while also expanding at the same time. The expansion theory goes hand-n-hand with plate tectonics although not exactly as taught. But as we all know and are continuing to be taught by geologists, it's all a theory anyway.
i'll refer to the boiling egg again.. If i heat an egg up till it cracks, the egg doesn't have to expand at a uniform rate and I wouldn't expect it to. When it does start to crack, some shell pieces will press against other shell pieces in areas away from cracks - plate tectonics..




But it doesn't make more water. Ice only takes up more volume than water does, and that is because of hydrogen bonds. Otherwise it would sink, rather than float. What it doesn't do is make more of itself.


I see what you're saying here, but my point earlier is that if the earth is a continuous state of radioactive decay, the atoms are rearranging themselves into different forms. Or realeasing themselves to be free enough to bond with others.. which is actually a prelude to my answer below




From what I have read in the past, it was higher levels of oxygen that enabled animals to be much larger back then.


This is true. All insects were larger because the amount of oxygen absorbed through an exoskeleton was at a much higher saturation thereby allowing insects to divert more of their body makeup into bulk instead of breathing.

Lets say that there is a radioactive decay process releasing hydrogen that's bonding with oxygen creating water. If before that process the hydrogen was in a denser state, you have an easy explanation for expansion right there.

A few miles below the ocean surface are lakes of denser water than the actual ocean itself. I watched a video of a mini-sub FLOATING on top of a lake at the bottom of the ocean. Tell me that wasn't unexpected!

Until we truly understand what's going on in the center of the earth, the crust is going to have plenty of enigmas

b

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Here's another video
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
Because subduction means that the Earth is going into the Earth. If it's going in, why are the subduction zones younger? If a plate is pushing underneath another , wouldn't the area of subduction be older ?


Hang on...

Looking at the NOAA image (This one), for instance at South America, you have young coastal plate going under older continental plate? The plate thats going under is older than it is at the divergent boundary, so whats the problem?

[edit on 13-1-2009 by apex]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MsSmartypants
 


Oh....my....God. I think this explains what's going to happen in 2012. Think about it...the stretching has already begun. We've been having a lot of earthquakes lately.

What if every 26,000 years, as the earth makes a complete rotation around the galaxy and crosses the galactic plane...which is what causes the precession of the equinoxes... it triggers the earth to grow again?

The ancient legends say that the passing of this next age from Pisces to Aquarius will cause great earthquakes. Well, that theory would surely cause massive earthquakes. Get ready everybody. And we have been a lot of earthquake activity lately. Especially in the areas of yellowstone, China, etc...

If this is true, then the word earthquake is going to take on a whole new meaning.

AND...think about this: the ancient Mayans also made references to "the dark rift".


Anyway, thank you so much for posting that video. Big star, flag, and digg for you.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by nikiano]

[edit on 13-1-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   


Hang on...

Looking at the NOAA image (This one), for instance at South America, you have young coastal plate going under older continental plate? The plate thats going under is older than it is at the divergent boundary, so whats the problem?

[edit on 13-1-2009 by apex]


Good find

The problem is that it's not the rule and actually an exception. If it's an exception then it supports the expansion in the same way I described the egg shell. It actually makes sense that if one portion, or plate, is moving faster than the others creating subduction areas, then you would see it more toward the poles where the it's colder. Also I don't see that big a difference in age. I only see a slight difference in the grand scale of things and on top of that, the average aging is constant from new to old after that point.

How bout we compare what percentage of the Earth doesn't support the subduction rule compared to the few areas of the earth that seem to be fighting to expand faster than the other to give the appearance of a subduction rule..

My money is still on expansion...though I did recently lose $350 at the casino so I'm not a bettin man

b ---> edited to add that on a spherical map rendered flat like this gives a false representation of the actual distance. The hotter areas of the earth are exploding in comparison to the poles.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MsSmartypants
 


The Universe itself is expanding, our galaxy is expanding. Planetary expansion in a logical hypothesis.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join