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 Expanding Earth hypothesis.

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 



Hi

Thanks . If you like this you should check out the link nikiano posted : www.nealadams.com...

This guy talks about an expanding universe and he shows the same thing happening on the Moon and Mars and so on. Fascinating nonetheless.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Very pleased to see this topic come up again, and I hope this time I can find the time to dive into it in more depth as it is a concept that fascinates me.

The theory has it's problems, but then so do plate tectonics and subduction, and when I was a lad these theories (and they are just that) did not exist either, so there is no saying what may or may not be proven in the future.

Like all good scientific theories someone has an idea and every one else knocks it. Later they turn round and accept it. (Flat Earthers denying the oblate spheroid theories - never did believe that, of course it is flat you can see it is.)

Just while passing - and I will be back - a core of iron? Maybe someone can explain why if that is the case, we do not have a much stronger magnetic field than we do? I am not sure that I get that one.

I have no doubt that you are going to get knocked on this thread - cue Phage - but be steadfast and stay with it. This theory deserves some scrutiny.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I watched the whole video presentation a few days ago, thanks for the links Sinter.

I have thought about it for awhile, and honestly, I can't really find anything wrong with this hypothesis.

It does seem to fit the data exceptionally well.

Many people are asking "where does matter come from no where?" and I say what if there is no Net gain or loss of matter overall at all?

What if it is just chemical processes, such as the expansion or detraction of various compounds due to heat/pressure/cold/water/etc.

Like the way that streets or sidewalks crack due to the changes between hot and cold. Because they expand and detract in actual size.

Or similar to the way that a half full pot of boiling water, when boiled, begins to overflow the pot. Where did it all come from you ask? Chemistry I say.

Or like when simple water is frozen, it actually seems to grow in size.

Or when you watch that ice melt and then evaporate. It looks like the ice and then water just disappears into no where. But in reality it becomes a gas which cannot be seen so easily, so there is no net loss of matter.

So IF the Earth is actually "growing" it is only an optical illusion IMO, due to the highly misunderstood geo-chemical processes.

There would be no net gain or loss of matter in a "growing" Earth scenario IMHO. The matter is only shifting into other forms thus giving an appearance of growth.

The only way to know if this is true is to ask Aliens, frankly lol.


We would need data sets that include information about billion year life cycles of Other Planets to understand how things actually work.

So before I will make my mind up, I will wait for aliens to land and show me their data.

However, this "growing Earth hypothesis" is just as good as plate drift theory. They should mention it more because it has compelling aspects and makes good arguments against many main tenants of plate drift theory.

I would wager that both theories miss something though, as we are a primitive civilization with almost no historical data; so there will be far better theories in the next hundred years that will explain geoscience much more accurately.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I thanks again. I agree with you. It should get some more attention. Even if there is a consensus made. The Evidence that supports expanding looks pretty convincing to me.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thank you very much to share your thoughts and your explicit explanation.
The idea of a bigger volume instead of a bigger mass, it makes sense. I will definitely look in to it. Maybe there is still something on it to find.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I think the main argument against this theory is not that there is no physical concept to describe how it happens but the fact that there is subduction.
However I have not seen any map which shows how much subduction there is and where.

Furthermore can someone explain how exactly that theory incompatible with subduction?

And one thing: That it can not be explained with mainstream science doesn't nessecerily mean it is wrong....



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


Hi

As a matter of fact someone posted a thread on subduction a few days ago.
Here you go. www.abovetopsecret.com... By Sandri_90

As for your other questions. I'm still hoping there will come a few expanding Earth deniers.

I would love to here there arguments.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Thanks for that link.

Here is a link to my response for it!!!

If that is the best the plate tectonics people can come up with..............



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
it makes sense ... if u dip a tenis ball in water and spin it, the water will come off. earth is spinning and it could very well be expanding cuz of it but it also means that its gonna slow down eventually too



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Haha I already read it. Sweet.



Edit still have to read about a quarter of the previous link you posted tho...

Well... you told me it was long.


[edit on 5/30/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tegz_1
 


Well I don't think it is that simple. We don't know what gravity is but we have a general clue that it is related to the mass of an object somehow.
So the earth is been hold together by gravity which is counteracting the centrifugal force, which should be minimal in comparison.

However the end result depends on whatever the earth is expanding because of there is more matter (and mass for that matter) generated somehow, or the density of the earth is in fact decreasing. In that case the rotation should slow down yes..

I heard an argument in the neal adams video about the dinosaurs. He claimed that he talked to a biologist who studied the dinosours physiology. He told him that the tyrannosaurus rex for ex had a head way too heavy for the bone structure. So if it would run it would in fact snap its neck. So neal adams concluded that in the past gravity should have been lower.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by kybertech]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 


I wonder if an expanding Earth could be explained with the electric universe theory.

Does anyone have a clue ?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Can you post a link for the electric universe theory? I don't think I have heard of that one.

Re the dinos, the logic of less gravity makes sense to me in a way, but not being a phycisist I am wondering would there, on a smaller earth, also be les or more centrifugal force? (I think they call it centripetal force these days)



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Oh yes I can. It could take A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

I don't think the centrifuginal force would decline. When an ice skater makes a pirouette,
They usually go much faster when they are pulling in there arms.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Here you go... Link.

In the OP you will find the links to the electric universe theory.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Thanks for that. Wow!

I wil be back in a year or so when I have read all that!!!!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
pretty logic hypotheses. the age of the earth undersea ground underpins the growing earth theory. But I have some questions:

Where does al the water come from? If earth grows like a balloon is there a huge big hole in the earth inner side? Is it in center of mass (must).

Is it possible that all this material comes from space with asteroids and meteoroids?

And when this is fact, was it before earth had an atmosphere?

Anyway - the Continents fit 360° together, so from me this is proof. isn't it?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Where does the matter come from to expand the earth? I believe that the matter comes from the center of the earth, thus the hollow earth becomes more and more hollow. It only goes to reason that matter in the center gets pushed out as the earth rotates at 36,000 MPH. Do a test with any round sphere and you will find the spinning pushes all the matter inside away from the center.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


That's a good question and I don't remember exactly...


He does have a theory ( the guy from the movie.) about the Earths core is some kind of inner sun where there is also fusion what creates the missing matter.

The post above talks about the hollow Earth and that theory talks about an inner sun in the core. So both theories are compatible to say the least.

We assume the Earth has an iron core and that the spinning of that core creates the magnetic field. There is one but... We don't know what is responsible for creating the magnetic field. Not so long ago there was a theory the oceans were creating the field.

If the Earth has an inner sun it would perfectly explain the magnetic field. We can observe the sun and we know it creates a magnetic field.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


I think you might have answered the million dollar question.

Please read my previous reply. ( right before this one. )



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join