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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I've re-thought my argument to explain how all of the planets are expanding, here it is:

There are 4 planets which are warm enough to have landmasses, and then there are 4 planets which are too cold for gases to come together and form any chunks of land.

The 4 land planets are smaller than the 4 gas planets because they are warm enough so that a solid crust would form in the atmosphere and keep the expansion of the planet to a minimum.

The 4 gas planets don't have a solid crust so they expand at a much quicker rate despite the fact that it is much colder. Even though the gas planets are cold compared to the land planets, they are still warmer than outer space which is near absolute zero, so relatively speaking the gas planets are still warm.

The 4 Land Planets:
Earth and Venus can expand much more quickly than Mars because they are warmer. Notice that Mars is still one giant landmass, possibly because the coldness of Mars keeps the landmass together. Either that or the landmasses already separated and what we see on the surface of Mars is the bottom of some kind of ocean that used to exist. Regardless of the reason, Mars is growing at a slower rate now than Earth and Venus.

The 4 Gas Planets:
Once you get below a certain temperature, a gas can't form into a solid anymore, and that is the case with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Jupiter is the biggest of the gas planets because it is warmest, and Uranus and Neptune are smaller because they are colder. I am assuming here that warm temperatures allow matter to expand more and cold temperatures make matter expand less.




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


YAY! we go tto the bottem of why you believe something so stupid.

It allows you to protect your belief in a magical genie that floats around and anwsers prayers. It is a pity you are so ignorant... and that the source of your ignorance is a fear of punishment.

Very very sad. When it gets to the point where you feel like killing yourself because you see that god and heaven do not exist. Come and read some of what i have said... maybe youll decide to stay alive,







[edit on 15-3-2010 by Wertdagf]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


YAY! we go tto the bottem of why you believe something so stupid.

It allows you to protect your belief in a magical genie that floats around and anwsers prayers. It is a pity you are so ignorant... and that the source of your ignorance is a fear of punishment.

Very very sad. When it gets to the point where you feel like killing yourself because you see that god and heaven do not exist. Come and read some of what i have said... maybe youll decide to stay alive,

I appreciate your completely useless post in an otherwise respectable debate.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


If that's the way you understood it, then kudos to you, you must understand things from reading my posts that I don't even understand myself. Why would I fear a God who is constantly helping me out and teaching me new stuff. I may be damned crazy at times, but I don't run around with a death wish fearing the Forces of the Universe. As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (as I do from time to time) I fear no evil, for walking by my side are shepherds and angels, witnessing what I go through taking notes for every thing I think, feel, see, hear, say, desire or otherwise, do. Why would I fear Love? It's what created me. I've been face to face with death so many times, I have stopped philosophying about it even, sometimes it makes me shake my head and admit to myself how improbable it is that I'm still alive. Not much else...



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Great, great topic, thanks. I have been convinced about "growing Earth" theory being correct for some time now. It really makes sense.
Why scientists are not accepting it? Same as usual - not "politically correct". Modern day "science" is heavily used to control the masses, and no changes in concept are welcome. I will stop at that.

I should say that there is a big question - water. If the Earth is expanding, the new sea floor being created, shouldn't the continents slowly also grow? I mean, unless more water is somehow being created, how is the new sea bed covered with water?

Water is key to life. Should we find out that water is somehow being created by Earth, it would be a most amazing discovery. I believe that oil is also created by internal geological processes and has nothing to do with fossils, instead methane and other gasses are responsible for the creation of our main source of energy. Could it be possible that some of these or similar processes are creating water?



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by herbivore
 


A comet crashed into earth leaving most of it's water down here, leaving the mon as a piece of Earth mixed with this comet core, which for all I know is a rod, a cone an egg a shield and a control station for some computer simulation system leaving us in vain time and time again..... and not a globe... Show me a picture of the "dark side" which is not a bloody mosaic. Show us what the moon's moon looks like, I'd like to moone it. This is the Truman's show, stay tuned we'll be right back after the break, I need to turn some tourists in the pacific riding into the mouth of the very Leviathan no less.... And BTW: DONT FREKKIN PANIC!

[edit on 15/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by herbivore
Great, great topic, thanks. I have been convinced about "growing Earth" theory being correct for some time now. It really makes sense.


In what way does it make sense? Where is it getting the new material if it actually becoming more massive? If it is expanding and not becoming more massive, what is the expansionary force? Don't you believe in gravity? Isn't gravity clearly holding the earth together?

What makes you think that it is getting any bigger?



Why scientists are not accepting it? Same as usual - not "politically correct". Modern day "science" is heavily used to control the masses, and no changes in concept are welcome. I will stop at that.


That's not true and it doesn't even make sense. The size of the earth is not a political issue, there would be no motivation to hide this sort of thing. Even if the motive existed the opportunity does not. The vast majority of scientists are private citizens who work in independant institutions. Every geologist would have to be in on it. As of December 31 2009 there were 22,800 members in the Geological Society of America, all of whom work in the field of geology. If the evidence existed some of these people would know about it and publish papers. The evidence does not exist.

Science is not "heavily" used to control the masses, and new discoveries are constantly being made which challenge existing beliefs. Just google scientific discoveries for any time period you want. It's not that scientists are conspiring to keep all the really cool stuff secret, it's that most of what you think they are keeping secret is actually just BS someone made up on the internet.

Just look at what was passed off on the previous page as evidence for the earth growing. It was a time lapse video of sea ice accumulating. The source was a Norwegian site so couldn't read it. The entire theory is based on similarily desperate interpretations of "evidence."



I should say that there is a big question - water. If the Earth is expanding, the new sea floor being created, shouldn't the continents slowly also grow? I mean, unless more water is somehow being created, how is the new sea bed covered with water?


If the earth were growing the oceans would be shallower but spread over a larger area. But it's not growing, so . . . problem solved.



Water is key to life. Should we find out that water is somehow being created by Earth, it would be a most amazing discovery. I believe that oil is also created by internal geological processes and has nothing to do with fossils, instead methane and other gasses are responsible for the creation of our main source of energy. Could it be possible that some of these or similar processes are creating water?


There is already plenty of water, we don't have to make up some story about how the earth makes it. It is believed to be the second most abundant molecule in the entire universe. It's made from hydrogen and oxygen(H2O) and there is hardly any free hydrogen gas in the atmosphere, about .5 parts per million by volume. There's plenty of oxygen but they don't combine on their own. They combine when concentrated and mixed and exposed to an ignition source, but this is an explosive process - it's how the space shuttle's engine works. It's not something that happens anywhere on the earth naturally.

Why would you just choose to believe something totally different than what the people who know what they are talking about believe? Why don't you accept the conventional explanation? Have you ever heard why it makes sense? Do you even know how they know where oil comes from? Or do you just ignore the evidence and make something up because for some reason it is more appealing? Just being contrarian because you think it means you're a free thinker? There's a difference between embracing original thought and embracing stupid made up crap just because you want to go against the fold.

First of all, petroleum has metal in it, so rest assured it doesn't come from gases. Second of all, it has a chemical in it called vanadium porphyrin, which is formed when chlorophyll breaks down over time and in the presence of heat. Chlorophyll only comes from living things, and vanadium porphyrin only comes from chlorophyll. Therefore the oil came from living things. Finally, we find most of it in places that we know used to be oceans. This is no accident. Oceans are the places where you find the most life, specifically you find a lot of algae that has chlorophyll in it. The algea die and sink the bottom, get covered in mud, the ocean dries up, the algea break down over a long period of time and turn into fossil fuels. If methane and "other gases" were the source, we would find totally different chemicals in the oil.

Science isn't all made up you know. If you look into it, it makes sense. It's all this other bull that is made up. If you look into it doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 



I believe that the theory of a "expanding Earth" is not worthy of tossing away just yet. It has some points to consider.

However, i think you aren't quite doing justice to the debate.

First, gravity is caused by mass, not "size" or anything like that. To understand why people consider "weight" to be a generative factor in gravity, you have to understand that weight is a measurement of force, and force=massXacceleration. In the average persons mind, due to our Earthbound frames of reference, "mass" and "weight" are tied together and equivalent. "Size" is just another way to refer to each of these.

Consider this:

The Earth is expanding not because of the vacuum, but rather from centrifugal force. Gravity is a weak force as you range away from its center. The gravity of the Earth may not be quite capable of holding down the crust, and the crust is being "flung" further and further out from the core?

The combination of our gravity, mixed the angular momentum created from our spin, keeps us locked in orbit around the sun, otherwise, perhaps centrifugal force would be too strong for the gravity of the Sun to retain our planet in orbit?





Consider this, another "pet theory" of mine. Not much of a theory, per se...but rather my own mental meandering on the subject...


We do not know what gravity is. We have strong evidence that shows that it is somehow related to EM, but we just don't quite understand how they are related. Figuring this out would likely bring about a Nobel Prize.

Consider that the Sun is theorized to be not a nuclear furnace, but rather an EM "glow discharge" by many plasma cosmologists. At the very least, we know that the Sun is highly EM active.

We know that the Sun is the power plant of our solar system. Increased solar activity in certain energy wavelengths, creates certain effects on solar system bodies. Take the current "global warming" happening solar system wide as an example.

What if the EM generating properties of the Sun is tied directly into the sum total of energy created or utilized within our solar system. The gravitational force being part of this. What if an altered Solar EM field could change the force that gravity exerted? As if, for example, the EM field was the field which helped propagate the gravitational field? I don't know about that, but my point is, what if the Suns energy output could control the strength of the gravitational fields of not only the Sun itself, but also the other celestial bodies?

Most of our understanding of physics is not much of an understanding. We understand the physics of our current space and time. We have only made observations within the narrow frame of reference of our local environment.

Edit to add: Pythagoreas understood something profound when he said "there is music in the spheres". They are placed where they are for a reason, and it corresponds closely to the musical scale.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned


If the earth were growing the oceans would be shallower but spread over a larger area. But it's not growing, so . . . problem solved.



Density. The key word is density. Sure, we understand how covalent bonds work....in our current spatial environment. Are you so sure it is a constant?



Science isn't all made up you know. If you look into it, it makes sense. It's all this other bull that is made up. If you look into it doesn't make sense.


When you read this post, keep in mind i am playing devils advocate for an idea that, in my mind, is not fully vetted because of what we just cannot know.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way....


....you shouldn't let your lack of imagination get the best of you. There ARE possibilities. Many of them have not even been considered. We live in a time that is admittedly tame and mild. Weather has been very stable over the last 300 years especially, but for the most part over the last several thousand years. Man has been able to scratch out a living until recent times, when moderate weather has really enable us to capitalize on how high up Mazlow's pyramid we have climbed.

Let's take one ludicrous possibility as an example: As i mentioned above, Pythagoreas noticed the correlation between the planets alignments/spacing (including the asteroid belt),and the musical notes. Like clouds in the sky, our planets orbits ripple outwards from the "wind", or source of energy.

What if that energy source changed? Would the "globes" assume a different position if the "song" changed?

It seems preposterous, but we DO have those nagging stories from our ancient past that tell of planets that move haphazardly and randomly through the solar system, wreaking death and destruction. The ancient man referred to Saturn as the highest God, not the Sun. Why is this?

Yes, it is preposterous. But there is nothing to disprove it, and there IS that little bit of evidence in the stories of our ancestors.

I propose that science IS just made up. That is exactly what it is. It is the use of logic to make sense of the world. Sometimes it is wrong, sometimes not. The fatal flaw is the grand assumption that the world around us is static, despite all common sense to the contrary.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I'm all for being open minded and imaginitive, but I also make a serious effort to distinguish between fantasy and reality. It's important to me.

The entire scientific enterprize has a simple mission statement: Gather as much evidence as possible and use logical arguments based on well understood premises to derive the best possible theories based on the evidence. The best theories based on the evidence. Evidence is synonymous with reason to believe. Without evidence we have no reason to believe. It's as simple as that.

I know that technically we can't prove anything, but that doesn't mean we should just through our hands up and completely abandon our effort to make sense of the world. We can interpret the evidence to the best of our ability. Doing that seems to be working pretty well; have you seen the spaceships we have these days?

Letting our imaginations run wild then confusing the results with reality defined the mystical worldview which humans operated under for a hundred thousand years. Look at what they accomplished. Then science came along and in the past one thousand years we have accomplished more than we ever did in the previous hundred thousand. Look at all of the theories which make successful predictions, and all of the technology which is based on those theories.

If science wasn't getting it right things wouldn't be the way they are. If it were better to just use our imaginations and not proceed based on evidence, they would have made more progress over the hundred thousand years that they did that.

Making claims based on no evidence which are in disagreement with well vetted, well supported theories is not an endeavour which I can endorse.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I'm all for being open minded and imaginitive, but I also make a serious effort to distinguish between fantasy and reality. It's important to me.

The entire scientific enterprize has a simple mission statement: Gather as much evidence as possible and use logical arguments based on well understood premises to derive the best possible theories based on the evidence. The best theories based on the evidence. Evidence is synonymous with reason to believe. Without evidence we have no reason to believe. It's as simple as that.


But does it not seem like all too often some evidence is discarded (such as pre-Clovis archeology, with the very mention of "pre-Clovis" getting you banned from publication) or is just invented to fill a gap (like dark energy, which is only imagined but never truly quantified outside of mathematical guesses based on an admittedly flawed system).

Science only seems to want to get at evidence that is "sane" and fits within the predetermine worldview of the collective establishment.

For a good example of how this works against humanity, check out the millions of pages of patents that were seized as "spoils of war" from the free thinking Nazi scientific establishment. It was a boon for western commerce and was the richest cache of information the US has ever come across. While some of the Nazi techniques were reprehensible, not all were. And they didn't acheive their breakthroughs with the rigid thought processes our current establishment is entrenched in.




I know that technically we can't prove anything, but that doesn't mean we should just through our hands up and completely abandon our effort to make sense of the world. We can interpret the evidence to the best of our ability. Doing that seems to be working pretty well; have you seen the spaceships we have these days?


Kind of. I just don't get to see any real, clear pictures of them that aren't labelled as "hoax".

Or did you not mean THOSE spacecraft?





Letting our imaginations run wild then confusing the results with reality defined the mystical worldview which humans operated under for a hundred thousand years. Look at what they accomplished. Then science came along and in the past one thousand years we have accomplished more than we ever did in the previous hundred thousand. Look at all of the theories which make successful predictions, and all of the technology which is based on those theories.

If science wasn't getting it right things wouldn't be the way they are. If it were better to just use our imaginations and not proceed based on evidence, they would have made more progress over the hundred thousand years that they did that.

Making claims based on no evidence which are in disagreement with well vetted, well supported theories is not an endeavour which I can endorse.


I am not saying proceed without evidence. I am saying to fully vet all possibilities. This is what science is. Currently, science stops when it finds a comfortable shoe. It doesn't keep shopping until it finds the "right" pair, only a comfortable pair.

Being "scientifically minded" does not mean you do not entertain thoughts of the fantastic. It is the exact opposite. As long as there is some evidence, it must be understood before you can claim "understanding". For example, the stories of our ancestors....it is cheap and lazy to chalk their stories up to imagination. All too often, we have found that their supposed fiction becomes reality. So the assumption must therefore be that there may be something to these stories. If so, how could we fit them into our understanding?

I am not saying that we teach this kind of "free thinking" in our universities. I AM saying we should encourage it in our people. Stifling it is not going to benefit anyone. It is free thinking that achieves the breakthroughs.

Modern science would find a more friendly populace if, when the "average joe" wanted to get involved, they didn't laugh them down. I am not at all saying this is what you are doing. I am saying that you see such snobbery happen all too often. "Intellectual superiority" is a vile form of hubris.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Edit to add: Pythagoreas understood something profound when he said "there is music in the spheres". They are placed where they are for a reason, and it corresponds closely to the musical scale.


Yes, and the 12 note chromatic scale goes from the Shuman frequency at about 7Hz upwards by multiplying it with the 12th root of 2, making the old tuning A turn out to be 432Hz which actually harmonates perfectly with the Shuman frequency, contrary to the modern tuning pitch at 440Hz which brings kind of a dissonance to the whole scale and the Earth's and universe's vibration, which was BTW introduced by Hitler's nazi regime no less.

26 chromatic notes down from the Shuman frequency you'll find the golden ratio, also found throughout the universe, especially in biological life, but also in galaxies and other things. Strange how music is connected to life and the universe and the vibration of our planet etc.

What if gravity has something to do with the Shuman frequency, which seems to radiate throughout our known universe? It's quite interesting to note that at the extremely low frequency (ELF) at a little more than 7 Hz, the total wavelength of this extremely low pitched humming equals the circumference of the Earth. Modulating this Shuman frequency, can cause people to vomit or S**t their pants, giving the name the Brown Sound to it, and at certain modulations you are not able to breathe and hearing and vision is disturbed etc. I agree with you that gravity is possibly electromagnetic radiation of some kind, possibly at extremely low frequencies and enormous wavelengths.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
None of you understand any of this stuff. Neal Adams theory, while neat, is probably wrong. So is everything else you think you know.

Show me some PROOF that the universe is expanding. IT"S NOT.

Tell me the difference between mass and matter. YOU CAN'T.

Define gravity for me. YOU CAN"T. No one can.

Good luck, smart guys. I guarantee you cannot prove any of these things. No one can so far. No one can say what gravity actually is.

Try it. Go ahead.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
None of you understand any of this stuff. Neal Adams theory, while neat, is probably wrong. So is everything else you think you know.

Show me some PROOF that the universe is expanding. IT"S NOT.


Going for some award for "Most Combative"?




Tell me the difference between mass and matter. YOU CAN'T.


Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter.

Sorry to ruin your day by telling you the difference between the object and the measurement.




Define gravity for me. YOU CAN"T. No one can.

Good luck, smart guys. I guarantee you cannot prove any of these things. No one can so far. No one can say what gravity actually is.

Try it. Go ahead.


So, i got 1 out of 3. Not too bad considering that "no one can", huh?

Now, to sum up your post: "We are all too stupid, and to search for answers somehow makes you even more stupid than someone with their head firmly entrenched into the sand". Is that about right?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Sorry, I am not trying to be combative, just to point some things out.

BZZZZZT. Wrong.

Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter. That defines NOTHING.

0 for 1. Care to try the other two?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
None of you understand any of this stuff.


What do you mean by understand? Plenty of "us" are familiar with the theories, which are in agreement with observations, and which make successful predictions. Our understanding is functional.

We'll get nowhere fast if we dismiss everything for which we don't have whatever kind of understanding you're looking for. Scientists who study planets or cosmology or astronomy can describe the relevant processes in accurate ways. They can make predictions that will come true using physical formulas, and they can tell you why things happen by describing the well understood underlying physical processes. It's not clear that the level of understandning you're talking about is possible or important.

No one claims to have all of the answers. Is your problem that you don't have any, and think that means no else does?



Show me some PROOF that the universe is expanding. IT"S NOT.


There's no such thing as scientific fact in the strictest sense. Or proof. There are standards of proof. No such thing as absolute proof that can confirm any theory with 100% certainty.

Scientists believe the universe is expanding based on what we believe is the best interpretation of the evidence. The galaxies all look like they are moving away from eachother. The big bang theory predicted the existence of cosmic background radiation, and then it was found to exist. That strongly suggests that the big bang theory is correct. We think that galaxies and moving away from eachother because we observe a red shift and we think that things that exhibit red shift are moving away.

None of this stuff can be proven absolutely, but nothing at all possibly can. The universe really seems like it is expanding. There's no better theor, which explains the evidence in a better way.



Tell me the difference between mass and matter. YOU CAN'T.


That's not a problem in physics. No one cares how we define english words that refer to genuine physical phenomena. It doesn't matter if we can't easily put those concepts into words. Physics is done in math, and the equations don't care what word you use. Matter is substance, mass is a measurable property. It's only a question that would bother someone who didn't understand any of the relevant science.



Define gravity for me. YOU CAN"T. No one can.


We define words with other words. Physicist don't describe the universe in words, they use equations. Functional mathematical definitions that can be used in equations to make successful predictions exist. Gravity is not well understood, but it is functionally defined in relativity. Those functional definitions are really good but not perfect. They work in all circumstances above the quantum scale.



Good luck, smart guys. I guarantee you cannot prove any of these things. No one can so far. No one can say what gravity actually is.


Right. Anyone who has studied science or philosophy knows that there is no such thing as absolute proof. So, what? You think no one should even try explain anything to the best of their ability? You think people shouldn't even have conversations because they can't know if they are absolutely right? Abandon all of the fruits of the scientific endeavour; all of technology? Because we can't absolutely prove the underlying theories?

You just reject science because you're unsatisfied with the standard of proof? Ignorant detractors rarely say anything anyone wants to hear. It's just useless complaining. How do you get through the day when nothing has ever been explained in a satisfactory way to you?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
None of you understand any of this stuff. Neal Adams theory, while neat, is probably wrong. So is everything else you think you know.

Show me some PROOF that the universe is expanding. IT"S NOT.


Then you say that the universe is finite, and I would love to see you explain what happens outside of it. When Edwin Hubble prooved in 1926 that the universe is expanding, Einstein soon realised that his "cosmological constant" was "my greatest blunder" to use his own words and straight away understood that indeed the universe is expanding. You must be quite a genious to being able to refuse what two of the 20th century's greatest minds were able to proove.


You might say that the universe falls away from itself, and it is even accellerating. Through measuring EM spectrums of stars with known signatures, only doppler's effect move these spectral signatures of known elements either way in the visual spectrum, depending on where they move, around the universe, you see a pattern where the bodies are moving away from eachother.


Tell me the difference between mass and matter. YOU CAN'T.


both hydrogen and helium is matter, but they have different mass, mass is used in physics to discribe the properties of matter. Like there is a difference between a rod of one meter and the metric meter as a measuring unit in physics. For instance: Every second the Sun loose about 4 million metric tons of matter which is turned into energy. Which constitutes to E=4,000,000,000*300,000^2 Joulles of energy.

In simple words you can say in layman's terms that mass is weight of matter, although it's not entirely true.


Define gravity for me. YOU CAN"T. No one can.


Newton and Einstein did some research into this, mind you, and both came up with working models which hold water and stands the scrutiny of empirical scientific method. I'm not very much into gravity, other than I feel it if I fall. Like bigfatfurrytexan I believe gravity can be measured in waveforms, as Einstein showed in his field equations. I'm not a physicist, so I'll leave it to the experts to explain it.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
OK, sorry guys, I'm not trying to be nasty. I didn't realize this was the same thread from months ago. I'm just trying to poke holes in these THEORIES. These are all theories.

When you poke a hole into a theory that ALL the other "theories" are based on, you destroy all the theories. All the people who subscribe to these theories cannot accept it no matter what, because it would mean that everything they have spent their whole lives studying is wrong, and therefore their entire lives were wasted. So you better believe they will try REALLY hard to stop it from happening.

The ONLY thing that provides ANY type of evidence that the universe is expanding, is the redshift theory, stating that light is doppler shifted like a train whistle as it passes you. Since all this physics, based on mathematical thought experiments, can't even decide if light is a wave or a particle, they have come up with bizarre mathematical models that somehow claim it is BOTH. This is obviously impossible, but no one wants to admit that.

Sound gets doppler shifted because it is a WAVE. How can particles get doppler shifted? They simply can't. No one will admit that. No one will admit that the emperor has no clothes either.

Once again, the redshift of light is the ONLY evidence of any kind that the universe is expanding. Halton Arp, through years of astronomy, has catalogued literally THOUSANDS of objects that have different redshifts, yet are CONNECTED to each other. A lot of them are objects with greater redshift in FRONT OF ones with lesser redshift. I'd say that alone is pretty good evidence that the whole doppler redshift theory is wrong. However, if that is wrong, then the Big Bang is wrong, the idea that quasars are so far away that we are seeing light emitted from billions of years ago is wrong, the idea that something so bright could be rotating at thousands of rpm's without flying apart is wrong, the idea that there is such a thing as a neutron star which somehow can take that angular momentum without flying apart is wrong, and on and on, shattering a WHOLE LOT of what is generally accepted to be true.

For the scientists to accept it, they would have to admit that their entire lives have been spent studying the WRONG stuff, or in other words, a total waste of time. NO ONE wants to accept something like that. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Once Halton Arp started pointing this stuff out, did anyone try to prove him wrong? NO. They banned him from telescope time. This would seem to indicate that THEY KNOW HE IS RIGHT. But since that would destroy their lives' work, it's better for them if they just SHUT HIM UP.

Now, I don't think any of this indicates that Neal Adams is right. However, he does have some good points. Mainly the size of the dinosaurs. It is impossible for them to have existed in today's gravity. THAT IS A FACT. So, either gravity used to be less when the dinosaurs were around, which would DESTROY all the so called explanations of gravity, or there is another factor which we are just not seeing. Either one of them will cause massive trauma in the scientific world. But if they just ignore it, all together, then they can continue believing what they think is true.

I read a book years ago, I think it was called "A New Theory of Everything", and I forget the author. I actually ordered this book and paid money for it, and read the whole thing. His theory is that everything IS expanding, from the atomic level. All the atoms are expanding, this is causing everything to expand in such a way that you can't notice it, because we are expanding too at the same time. And gravity is just you feeling the expansion, like when you go up in an elevator.

It was a pretty good theory, and he had it well put together. But I just could not buy what he was selling. This does not mean he is wrong, I just do not believe it. But I could be wrong. Just because I do not believe him does not make him wrong. The same as with everything else.

In the entire history of the world, at least as far as we are aware of it, EVERYTHING that everyone knew has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong, sooner or later. SO it is merely the height of hubris to assume that NOW, all of a sudden, we are all right, even though everyone has always been eventually proven to be wrong. We are not God, it is more likely than not that we are wrong. That is all.

Actually, here is the book about the expansion theory. If you are not close-minded, read the PDF file of the first 25 pages, it will blow your mind and states what I am saying a little better than I can. It doesn't mean this guy is right, but it certainly points out quite well how WRONG everything else is.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Here's another little mind bender for you: Photosynthesis. What is it?

Plants are transforming energy into matter. That's right. Sunlight is somehow transformed into the plants themselves. How does that work? No one even TRIES to explain HOW it works, let alone WHY. It just IS. They simply made up a word for it. This is not science, this is a return to mystical magical thinking of days gone by. Not good enough, fellas.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

In the entire history of the world, at least as far as we are aware of it, EVERYTHING that everyone knew has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong, sooner or later. SO it is merely the height of hubris to assume that NOW, all of a sudden, we are all right, even though everyone has always been eventually proven to be wrong. We are not God, it is more likely than not that we are wrong. That is all.

Actually, here is the book about the expansion theory. If you are not close-minded, read the PDF file of the first 25 pages, it will blow your mind and states what I am saying a little better than I can. It doesn't mean this guy is right, but it certainly points out quite well how WRONG everything else is.


I am confused. If you are attacking opposing arguments by saying "no one in the history of ever has ever been right about anything," what makes you so sure that you are right about everyone being wrong?


Since all this physics, based on mathematical thought experiments, can't even decide if light is a wave or a particle, they have come up with bizarre mathematical models that somehow claim it is BOTH. This is obviously impossible, but no one wants to admit that.

Sound gets doppler shifted because it is a WAVE. How can particles get doppler shifted? They simply can't. No one will admit that. No one will admit that the emperor has no clothes either.


I have a 387 page National Bestseller right here by world-renowned physicist and professor at Columbia University Brian Greene. He was involved in several breakthroughs in super string theory. In this book it explains several different experiments that were done to test light's wave-like and particle-like properties.

"The photoelectric effect shows that light has particle properties. The double-slit experiment shows that light manifests the interference properties of waves. Together they show that light has both wave-like and particle-like properties." -p.103.

I am 90% sure you are not convinced that light is both a wave and a particle and if you want I can explain the experiments but that would take a lot of effort on my part so I'll leave it up to you if you want to know. Moving on.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join