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: 13
85
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TigaHawk
 


The relatively "new" age of the oceanic crust suggested that the crust was being destroyed. Old crust was not to be found. In addition to the age of the oceanic crust it was clear that the sediments on the oceanic crust was new.

The Earth is not getting bigger. Oceanic crust is recycled.


Wether earth is changing energy into matter, or we are getting matter fall down on us from space which over time builds up to a considerable ammount as well, adding mass to earth.

Neither is happening. The influx of material from space is small. Matter cannot be created from incoming energy.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The Earths crust continues to change, and this is easily explained by the expanding Earth theory.

The expanding Earth theory is an utter failure. It does explain how the Earth can be expanding.


This influx is well known but has been grossly underestimated and dismissed as insignificant—despite massive amounts of meteoric, geologic and organic evidence found in immense coal, oil, and limestone deposits, plus deep overburdens, on every continent and in all ocean sediments.

False. Look at the moon. There are a few centimeters of influx from billions of years accumulation. There is no erosion on the moon to remove the influx. Of course it is insignificant.

The site openly lies when it claims massive amounts. Coal, oil, and limestone deposits are not extraterrestrial in origin. Nothing in that paragraph supports the claim of a large influx of material.


but they should consider coal beds that were formed from trees in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) but are now buried under deep overburden that accreted later.

Examine this baloney. The material overlying the coal beds is not extraterrestrial in nature. It is not accretion. The overburden is depositional in nature.


The huge fossilized tree trunks found in the Petrified National Forest near Holbrook in eastern Arizona are additional evidence of mass from solar energy.

Does this web page think we are idiots? Where is the connection that any of this represents additional mass? This is produced in a manner like today: CO2 and water are converted into polysaccharides. The energy of the sun is used to perform chemistry, not changing energy into matter.

The rest of the paragraph is just silly nonsense about living organisms converting energy into mass. Simply laughable.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


There are 16 people in the first link. Nowhere is there a university supporting this claim.

I checked out a few names to see who was on this list. A few of the names are hard to locate. They do not appear to have published much if anything at all.

Other people are not to be found such as Nicholas Carter at Carnegie Mellon. Or what about Andrea Fitanides who graduated with a degree in philosophy and went on to law school?

If you are trying to make an appeal to authority it seems that this is a not a good one.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Sorry that you can't follow a simple thread such as this one. The discussion at that point in time was about counter tops.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Or else you utterly fail to understand science.

There is considerable evidence the Moon is expanding, and Mars as well.

Obviously you have never heard of the solar wind.

You have yet to explain how in plate tectonics, a plate is pushed down into the far denser mantle.

pubs.usgs.gov...


A tectonic plate (also called lithospheric plate) is a massive, irregularly shaped slab of solid rock, generally composed of both continental and oceanic lithosphere. Plate size can vary greatly, from a few hundred to thousands of kilometers across; the Pacific and Antarctic Plates are among the largest. Plate thickness also varies greatly, ranging from less than 15 km for young oceanic lithosphere to about 200 km or more for ancient continental lithosphere (for example, the interior parts of North and South America).


15 km to 200 km thick? Where does all that mass go when one plate is pushed under another? We should be seeing mountains 15 - 200 km high. Either the mantle must absorb the plate, or the plate rising on top of the other plate should increase in altitude 15-200 km. If N America has slid 3,000 miles across tectonic plates, what happened to the the other 12 km of plate thickness? The Tufts plain is only -10,000 ft. This is only about 3 km. N America's average elevation is only a few hundred meters.

That is a huge amount of mass that somehow disappeared. Even if the upper mantle absorbed that mass it should have flowed somewhere. We should see a huge pile up of mass as the N American plate plowed across the pacific, but instead off the west coast we see this smooth plain. It doesn't make any sense at all.


edit on 13-3-2011 by poet1b because: missing / at end of ex quote..



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Or else you utterly fail to understand science.
There is considerable evidence the Moon is expanding, and Mars as well.

There is zero evidence for that. Why make up all of these false tales?

Just because you don't understand plate tectonics and isostacy and other issues is meaningless. Wacky claims about "We should be seeing mountains 15 - 200 km high." simply illustrates your lack of understanding of geological processes. Maybe you should take a basic course such as an intro into geology at a local college. The average elevation of continents is 800m. So what?


That is a huge amount of mass that somehow disappeared. Even if the upper mantle absorbed that mass it should have flowed somewhere. We should see a huge pile up of mass as the N American plate plowed across the pacific, but instead off the west coast we see this smooth plain. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Take an intro course and learn where you are confused on these matters.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The evidence is easy to see, as long as you are willing to open your eyes and your mind.

Why do you make up all this false nonsense?

Then you throw out the typical straw man argument. You are incredibly predictable.

These aren't my theories, these are the theories of numerous geologist who went to school and obtained advanced degrees. All I am doing is explaining why I agree with their theories.

All your beliefs are based on a competing theory, which you can't even begin to explain, which demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You need to take a course on critical thinking skills.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Again, you demonstrate that your only skill is in attacking others.

Maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension. It is 34 original members in 16 countries.

From the list I provided of the original members of the Expanding Earth Organization are representatives from:

www.expanding-earth.org...


Marine Geologist, Institute of Oceanographic Sciences

Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology
University of Hawai'i

Bureau de Cartographie Géologique International
Laboratoire de Géologie de l'Afrique

Université de Paris-SUD, Bâtiment 470'91405

Department of Geology, University of Canterbury

Ganzhou Geological School

Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics

Tokyo University of Education

Professor (Ret.), University of Hamburg


Those who would like to see the full list, please go to the site.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The personal attacks and off-topic remarks end here and now.

All members in this thread have been here long enough to know the rules and we expect you to follow them.

Please reference these threads:

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

Further posting in line with the behavior listed above will result in warnings and potential loss of posting privileges.

Considering yourselves warned.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



These aren't my theories, these are the theories of numerous geologist who went to school and obtained advanced degrees. All I am doing is explaining why I agree with their theories.

This is an appeal to authority. The authority to which you appeal is a very few individuals. You did make a claim about universities supporting this, yet that does not appear to be true. It is a very few individuals of which some are not even geologists.


All your beliefs are based on a competing theory, which you can't even begin to explain, which demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

This is an off topic attack directed at me.

The issue is that nothing has been proposed which allows for the Earth to expand. Nothing. The evidence for an expanding Earth does not exist. No mechanism exists. The theory also does not explain subduction zones where seismic evidence shows crust plunging down into the Earth.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


This is just an appeal to authority of a very few individuals. This does not represent universities as originally claimed. Some of these people have hardly published. Some of the people are not listed at the institutions. Some people turned out to be philosophy majors that went to law school.

The people are not as important as the evidence. Where are the publications? Where are the mechanisms, and data supporting this nonsense? There is none. Not surprising.
edit on 13-3-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Actually, they are posted as representatives of the institutions, which normally means this was approved by those institutions.

No matter how you spin it, it proves your claims that this is not back by people with credentials to be completely false. Just another example of you denying when you have been proven wrong.

Meanwhile you have yet to demonstrate that know anything about anything.


edit on 13-3-2011 by poet1b because: grammatical error



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Actually, they are posted as representatives of the institutions, which normally means this was approved by those institutions.

That is false. They are not posted as representative of their institutions. They are posted with identifying information. This is no way means that any identifying information connects other groups with the claims of an expanding Earth. This does not mean they are representatives of the institutions.

What the identifying information allows people to do is to find our more about who these people are. I found out that these people hardly published in their fields. I found out that some of the people in the lists were not geologists. In fact, some people received undergraduate degrees in philosophy.

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Such an appeal avoids discusses the evidence. Just because these people produced little publishable data or were not geologists does not support or detract from the claims of an expanding Earth. It is simply a distraction.

The expanding Earth theory is a failure.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension. It is 34 original members in 16 countries.

Let's check out what I wrote.

There are 16 people in the first link. Nowhere is there a university supporting this claim.


What does the link state. The link is titled: "16-Original Members". The page does ask for information about "each of the 34 former members in 16 countries."

I did not bother to count the number of people on the page. I assumed that the content of the page including the title is correct. The title was misleading and I did not bother to double check the site.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
A Reminder

Opinions on the topic are welcome.

Opinions about fellow members are off topic, unneeded and detrimental to continued civil discourse.

Please post On Topic sans the personal sniping and sarcastic comments.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I remember the series of shows in ancient Earth, where there theory that during the time of Pangaea's existence there was a large number of active calderas that almost wiped out all life on Earth. Surprisingly, several searches failed to reveal and websites that supplied any level of information on these events. Even more surprising is the lack of websites that discuss the theory of Pangaea. While this theory is taught as if it was the gospel, surprisingly there are not a lot of studies available on it, nor any sites devoted to this mainstream concept of geological history.

The reason I made this search was to look for evidence that the Earth might have experienced a great deal of accretion of mass during this period, which would explain the rise in calderas, and a source for the increase in the mass of our planet. If the Earth experienced a phase where a large amount of space debris, or large accumulation of meteors in our orbit due to many possibilities, and began to be absorbed by the Earth, it could explain the large amount of increase in the Earth's mass. Considering the nature of caleras, could these calderas be the result of the Earth getting hit by shotgun blasts of meteor strikes? These impacts may have penetrated the crust, triggering massive changes in the upper mantle, and possibly the lower mantle and outer core. The increase in mass would trigger a reformation of the Earth's surface due to the gravitation force changing the surface of the Earth.

See www.expanding-earth.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The reason I made this search was to look for evidence that the Earth might have experienced a great deal of accretion of mass during this period, which would explain the rise in calderas, and a source for the increase in the mass of our planet.

The main accretion happened billions of years before Pangaea existed. There has been little accretion in the last billion years and Pangaea existed around 250Ma.
Pangaea


Gravitational disruption from the outer planets' migration would have sent large numbers of asteroids into the inner Solar System, severely depleting the original belt until it reached today's extremely low mass.[44] This event may have triggered the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred approximately 4 billion years ago, 500–600 million years after the formation of the Solar System.[2][56] This period of heavy bombardment lasted several hundred million years and is evident in the cratering still visible on geologically dead bodies of the inner Solar System such as the Moon and Mercury.[2][57] The oldest known evidence for life on Earth dates to 3.8 billion years ago—almost immediately after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

There is a huge gap in time between the time of significant planetary accretion and the time when Pangaea existed.


Considering the nature of caleras, could these calderas be the result of the Earth getting hit by shotgun blasts of meteor strikes?

Do you see calderas associated with known impact sites?


These impacts may have penetrated the crust, triggering massive changes in the upper mantle, and possibly the lower mantle and outer core. The increase in mass would trigger a reformation of the Earth's surface due to the gravitation force changing the surface of the Earth.

Where is any evidence for any of this? There has been little, actually an insignificant increase in mass, int he last billion years or more. So where is this coming from? What is this based on?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


It is a pretty foolish idea to use wiki as a source, when you have already slammed another poster for using wiki.

I have posted numerous links with evidence of the expanding Earth theory, from sources with credible references, far better than wiki.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The wikipedia references I made were to pages that were well documented with references to articles in peer reviewed journals. Posting links to contrived websites is hardly evidence.

Are you disputing the age of Pangaea?
Are you disputing that Pangaea is only the most recent supercontinent?
Are you disputing that the accretion on the moon is only a few centimeters thick?
Are you disputing that accretion has slowed to a crawl in the last billion years?

What are you disputing?



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join