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.

 

Expando Planet Theory more likely than Nirubu/Planet X...and happening NOW?!!!!

page: 10
85
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It would be a understatement to state the obvious the earth is gaining water through a procees that involves interstellar paramaters affecting the sun and causing various millionial changes like ice ages,when the earth no longer absorbs hydrogen from space but freezes all forms of hydrogen in ice.The earth behaves much like a thermal nuclear reactor but because it has centrifuge and mass gravity absorbs hydrogen and oxygen as required.There are periods in history when the planet stops the process of gradual water absorbtion a iceage ensues this explains the rock strata changes,layers and movements as glacial movements causing the rock displacements seen globally.
Unfortunetly the earth is affected by solar output and its output is affected by interstellar fields of energy within the milky way galaxy,,and we are currently heading right into one in the next 72 years ,hence its (Sol)current activity is not as predicted .checkout cosmic ray increases,we hint
Plus the fact that gravity is weak and in a constant dance with a EXPANDING SPACETIME UNIVERSE,so theoretrically expanding earth is valid,that is also why earthquakes are hard to predict,because of the tugg between intersolar and interstellar forces

edit on 12-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Interesting concepts. There is so much we don't understand about our planet, or the nature of physics, it is good to keep the possibilities open.

I didn't find much information on dirty plasma, do you have any links?

Most of the Earth's mass is in the outer core and the lower mantle. There is flow in these deep structures of the planet, so it seems possible that material from the surface could make its way down to the these lower layers.

Did you look at this link on the Expanding Earth theory. www.expanding-earth.org...

There is a lot of good information, but it needs more concepts about how the outer core and lower mantle could have gained mass. I still think the concept makes more sense than the drift of tectonic plates concept.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by smurfy
 


I would be interested in reading about oxygen levels at the time of the dinosaurs. I do know that the levels were much higher earlier in the Earth's history. I thought levels were down before the Mesozoic era. Thanks for any links.


That's most likely what the debate is about. The Mesozoic era takes in several peroids I think. So how much oxygen transfer did the, (large) dino's need and how much did they get latterly? The thinking is that dino's needed high levels of oxygen like 35% and maybe they had little reserve in their lungs, although I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly about dino lungs. Then right through the era, if the research is correct, the oxygen levels were highly variable. So if you want to include a bolide from space, the dino's were most likely roasted, starved and suffocated. Here's one paper on it, to edit a blog rather,

dml.cmnh.org...
edit on 12-3-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


The dinosaurs died because of a change in gravity,thats why all creatures since have predicated toward smaller creations and larger ones are dying off !This is why the earths axis has changed by 4 inches in the last 36 hours and the chile earthquake sped up the planets rotation,this information has been readily available but people ignore the evidence.The planet is changing.
edit on 12-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 

That is the principal reason why I even mention dino's in this thread, already said that in earlier post. The need is to establish higher oxygen=an earth with a lower gravity=a smaller earth. Maybe plants in such an environment could have an answer for that.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 
Thanks much for the explanation! Serves me right for being nosey and listening to the conversation of others whom I don't know! When the good Lord was handing out noses I thought he said "Roses", and asked him to give me a big red one!



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 
This thread is one of the more interesting I have read...Many thanks everyone! I'm sixty years old, and have once again come across proof that " One is never too old too learn! ".



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



It would be better to debate the thread from a different angle than the properties of granite.

I'm not the person that brought up this asinine claim over granite.

Granite porosity, which is trivial and admittedly > 0, cannot explain the idiotic and stupid claims of the expanding Earth theory. End of story.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Age of the moon has nothing to do with it, but if you bothered to look up at the moon, you would notice some very large craters. Hard to believe those asteroid strikes didn't have a great deal of effect on the moon.

This is a a straw man argument at best. The moon is not covered in a tremendous layer of debris.The debris layer is thin. It represents the accumulation of material from billions of years of accretion.


Byrd still claims that granite is not porous, even though she acknowledges that water penetrates the surface of granite, and I have provided a link backing up the reality, and a quick internet search provides tons of information on the topic. At some point, it isn't worth replying.

No matter how many times you make this absurd statement the fact is that the porosity of granite is due to cracks that formed when the material contracted.


How much mass would an asteroid big enough to carve out the Hudson Bay, or the Arctic Ocean, add to the Earth?

Why don't you tell us unless you are afraid that the remarkably small number shatters this ridiculous claim of yours.


A link on this thread has been provided to a site where numerous people with considerable credentials, and a few Universities as well support the Expanding Earth theory. This is a theory that is gaining momentum.

Actually, this is an idea that was discarded over half a century ago when it was realized that it was a dead end.


Then again, you might want to consider that your cheap dismissal of the theory makes you come off as pompous.

It has been rather trivial to show what an inane idea this is.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Interesting concepts. There is so much we don't understand about our planet, or the nature of physics, it is good to keep the possibilities open.

And what about physics do we not understand? Is this a claim that we have no known mechanism to explain the stupidity of an expanding Earth?


Most of the Earth's mass is in the outer core and the lower mantle. There is flow in these deep structures of the planet, so it seems possible that material from the surface could make its way down to the these lower layers.

Really? You think that surface material gets down to the inner core?

So far all we have seen is nonsense about where the mass comes from. Or, there is the idiotic claim that the Earth is puffing itself itself up through contraction cracks. Or there is the idiotic claim that the Earth squeezes itself so hard that it puffs itself up. Or the dumbest claim is that centimeters of extraterrestrial influx adds kilometers.


There is a lot of good information, but it needs more concepts about how the outer core and lower mantle could have gained mass. I still think the concept makes more sense than the drift of tectonic plates concept.

This is the flaw of this STUPID theory isn't it? you have to make up a nonsense story to claim additional mass. It is not working is it?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



That's most likely what the debate is about. The Mesozoic era takes in several peroids I think. So how much oxygen transfer did the, (large) dino's need and how much did they get latterly? The thinking is that dino's needed high levels of oxygen like 35% and maybe they had little reserve in their lungs, although I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly about dino lungs. Then right through the era, if the research is correct, the oxygen levels were highly variable. So if you want to include a bolide from space, the dino's were most likely roasted, starved and suffocated. Here's one paper on it, to edit a blog rather,

The question is not what fantasy people conjure up and what unsubstantiated stories are made up, but what is the science and the evidence.

I checked out your link. I checked into Robert Sloan. Did you?

SCIENCE WATCH; DEATH OF DINOSAURS ASSERTED TO BE GRADUAL

I looked all over the place for Sloan original paper and all I could find was your link that suggests a link to oxygen while nothing else associated with Sloan does. Do I smell a misrepresentation? I'd like to see Sloan original material and not someone claiming what he said.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 


Nothing you posted makes sense - NOTHING!

Your earlier claim og the Earth collecting hydrogen from the Sun is nonsense. The claim of freezing all forms of hydrogen as ice is also nonsense.

This is the best nonsense sentence:

The earth behaves much like a thermal nuclear reactor but because it has centrifuge and mass gravity absorbs hydrogen and oxygen as required.


Runner up for nonsense is the next sentence:

There are periods in history when the planet stops the process of gradual water absorbtion a iceage ensues this explains the rock strata changes,layers and movements as glacial movements causing the rock displacements seen globally.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You don't get it, it isn't just me you are calling stupid, you are also calling all the geologist, doctorates, and heads of University departments who put their names on the web site I have been quoting, and participate in the discussion of the Expanding Earth theory, stupid.

[[[snip]]]]





posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


In answer -THERE WOULD BE NO EARTH IF ALL THE WATER ON IT CAME FROM COMETS AS PROPOSED BY CURRENT THEORIES AS CURRENTLY AS INHABITANTS WE ALL WANT TO AVOID BEING HIT BY ONE NEVER MIND SEVERAL THOUSAND AS POSTULATED IN CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THESIS.
Ice ages have never been accurately explained either and knowledge base is increasing,polar caps are fresh frozen water,sea is seasalt water and icecaps are FRESH WATER,ergo frozen tundra is freshwater precipitated and frozen in a process..source for enlightenment
Extract to knowledge

For the most part icebergs are fresh water. The reason is that when ice freezes slowly enough to not trap salt water inclusions, the complex crystal structure of ice does not provide any space for the salt to become incorporated into the crystal structure. You can demonstrate this for yourself by PARTIALLY freezing a solution of salt water, say about 5% in your frig freezer. Freeze about 1/4 of the water. Remove the frozen ice and carefully rinse it in cold fresh water, say just above 0 C. so you don't melt the ice very much. Rinse it several times with new fresh cold water then taste the ice cube and compare that taste to the taste of the original salt solution.

The process of why polar caps are freshwater is debateable ,The Earth's water has increased in volume due to biological processes or other. In the early oceans of Earth, hydrogen sulfide would have been in great supply, which, when activated with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis in sulfide-reducing bacteria, would have produced hydrogen, sulfur, and water. Many geologists believe that the majority of Earth's water was created through this process.but not when percieved from its true purpose,there are other theories to do with electroconductive energy currently equating and being evaluated !en.wikipedia.org...
I hope this enlightens the synapses ,gringo


edit on 13-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You don't get it, it isn't just me you are calling stupid, you are also calling all the geologist, doctorates, and heads of University departments who put their names on the web site I have been quoting, and participate in the discussion of the Expanding Earth theory, stupid.

This is called an appeal to authority argument.

Instead of attempting to support a claim with evidence, the fall back is to claim that some unnamed people with credentials think this is so.

I have shown that the claims of porous granite are wrong. The pores are cracks due to SHRINKAGE. Actually, you posted the information that discredited the pore issue. I have shown that there can be no increase in mass due to an energy transfer from the sun.

Now the argument is that some unnamed people with credentials exist that support this notion.

Maybe we need to get a short list of these people and learn WHEN they gave their nod of approval to this notion. More importantly let's find out WHY they gave their support.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
One day people will laugh at the ignorance of the people who blindly believe that things in this universe do not grow namely our earth. Long ago people knew or felt the earth was round but then 'scholars' said it was flat.

Pangea is a headache. Flawed joke. No one can explain the Pacific spread when you can clearly see that it also joins together. So if the Atlantic and the pacific spread can come together comes together than the continents were one. On a smaller planet.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



In answer -THERE WOULD BE NO EARTH IF ALL THE WATER ON IT CAME FROM COMETS AS PROPOSED BY CURRENT THEORIES AS CURRENTLY AS INHABITANTS WE ALL WANT TO AVOID BEING HIT BY ONE NEVER MIND SEVERAL THOUSAND AS POSTULATED IN CURRENT SCIENTIFIC THESIS.

SHOUTING OUT A MISTAKE OFFERS NO SUPPORT TO YOUR CLAIM.

The oceans are relatively small and in a time of accretion could certainly have supplied all of the water we see today. In fact, that water could certainly have arrived before the advent of life on Earth. Water is still falling onto the atmosphere in the form of ice.

The problem with the wikipedia link you used is that the material on the website does not appear to be linked to actual scientific work. Did you check the references. There is no reference to Jewett's paper. The other papers are given without title or link. The webpage appears to be partially made up.

An understanding of the freezing process on Earth says nothing about the source of the water. I already knew as I'm sure other readers that freezing seawater forms a solid free of most of the salt.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Again, nothing is being posted that supports the expanding Earth theory. The claim that it grows is false. Where is the evidence?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Actually citing the work of others as support of your claims is an extremely valid argument used by virtually everyone with a level of credibility.

Citing the work of others is different from citing others. An appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to the work of others.

Where is the evidence. You claim all sorts of authorities have lent their support. The question is rather simple. Provide a short list of names including when and why they support the expanding Earth theory.

So far this far fetched notion has not shown how the Earth can expand. Where is the extra matter coming from? It can't be accretion from space as matter. The Moon's surface has a thin layer of dust. It can't be transferred to the Earth as energy otherwise we'd be cooked every single second of the day.

There has been an utter failure to show how the Earth could expand. The utter failure of the claims of porous granite is ludicrous. The pore space is minuscule and is due to cracks during contraction. Materials at the Earth's surface do not expand. They contract because they cool. This same cooling is part of the reason that sea depth increases away from spreading ridges.



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join