Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 14
85
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You also claimed that there was an association with impact sites and calderas. I asked if you knew of any such associations. Did you forget to try and connect these issues?

I am not aware of such a connection. If you have anything to show I believe many readers would be interested in seeing some information on the subject.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No, I didn't "claim that there was an association with impact sites and calderas."

You have some serious reading comprehension skills.

What I said.


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


I suggested a possibility. It is the kind of thing that people do on conspiracy sites. We throw out ideas.

During the time of Pangaea, numerous calderas supposedly started erupting. I think it is very reasonable to think that maybe this was the result of the Earth getting hit by numerous large, very dense, high speed meteors that punched through Earth's crust. This would explain the origins of calderas. This would also explain Earth's considerable expansion after or during this period.

Apparently Crater Lake is a caldera. Here is a nice discussion on the subject, if you care to learn about anything. It doesn't really give a reason for the origin, just evidence of what happened in eruptions. An idea is presented that calderas form along fault lines, but couldn't a meteor strike create fault lines.

www.craterlakeinstitute.com...

As far as your use of the wiki link, without and quotes that back your claims, or a link to the original source, here is a link that proves everything you say is wrong.

www.google.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So you throw out this idea and I simply ask if there are any places anywhere on Earth where calderas are associated with impact sites. Is this "possibility" just another unsubstantiated statement with no reason at all for making it? Why use this suggestion for Pangaea?


During the time of Pangaea, numerous calderas supposedly started erupting.

So far you have not substantiated this statement. Which caldera supposed started erupting? Can you name even one or give a general location for even one?


I think it is very reasonable to think that maybe this was the result of the Earth getting hit by numerous large, very dense, high speed meteors that punched through Earth's crust. This would explain the origins of calderas.

There are already explanations for calderas. Why do you need to claim another explanation?


This would also explain Earth's considerable expansion after or during this period.

That did not happen so why do you insist that it did without a shred of evidence to support the claim?


Apparently Crater Lake is a caldera.

It is and its origin is well known. There is no evidence for an impact site there. Your link doe snot mention anything about an impact.


As far as your use of the wiki link, without and quotes that back your claims, or a link to the original source, here is a link that proves everything you say is wrong.

It is not clear what you were linking to, but your claim is once again an utter failure. Instead of dealing with the issues at hand you continue to make unwarranted, snide remarks. Sad, very sad.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

You also claimed that there was an association with impact sites and calderas. I asked if you knew of any such associations. Did you forget to try and connect these issues?

I am not aware of such a connection. If you have anything to show I believe many readers would be interested in seeing some information on the subject.

I asked a simple question is you were aware of a connection between calderas and impact sites.

So far the question has gone unanswered. It seems that there is no connection, which is what I thought was the case.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Ah yes, you foolishly think all theories are proven facts. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I came up with the idea that dinosaurs were birds, and not reptiles as I had been taught in school long before science came around, who knows, maybe I am ahead of the curve on the caldera ancient meteor strike theory.

www.nasaimages.org...:Gora-Konder-Crater,-Yakutsk,-CIS


Gora Konder Crater, Yakutsk, CIS (57.5N,134.5E) is located in a very remote region of the Republic of Yakutsk, CIS where little ground survey work has been done. It is not known for certain wether Gora Konder crater is the extinct caldera of an ancient volcano or an impact crater from a meteor strike since both occurrences may often exhibit similar visual appearances and only a ground survey can make a positive determination.


There currently are no good theories as to why so many calderas occurred on Pangaea, or old Earth before it began a tremendous expansion.

Still waiting for you to explain what happens to the plate that slides under a different plate.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Ah yes, you foolishly think all theories are proven facts. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Anyone that writes such a statement does not understand what a theory is in science.


Gora-Konder-Crater,-Yakutsk,-CIS

This does not in anyway suggest that calderas are linked to impact sites. To do so is to make a clear misrepresentation of the facts of the article. So far there is no reason to believe that an impact site is associated with a caldera.


There currently are no good theories as to why so many calderas occurred on Pangaea, or old Earth before it began a tremendous expansion.

Again, can you name or point to even one Pangaea caldera?

This claim appears to be totally unsubstantiated.

It's another bluff that has been called.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
The expanding earth theory is becoming more valid by the day ,I agree with the Op,with current events of cracks appearing all over the place and japan moving,I just can`t get my head away from the proposition of the theory.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



The expanding earth theory is becoming more valid by the day ,I agree with the Op,with current events of cracks appearing all over the place and japan moving,I just can`t get my head away from the proposition of the theory.

Japan moving does not support the expanding Earth theory. Japan moved towards the US, not away. That part of the Pacific became smaller. That's what plate tectonics is all about. The continents move. They move because they are riding on plates. Everything in Japan fits the plate tectonic model, not an expanding Earth.

Had the Earth been expanding, then the quakes around Japan would have been like the quakes at spreading ridges where they are frequent and much lower magnitude. The depth of the quakes would not indicate that a plate is being subducted. The distribution and depth of the quakes shows a plate moving downward.

What about cracks appearing all over the place. Where are there cracks? Are you talking about cracks at well known spreading ridges that lend strong support to plate tectonics?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by stereologist
 

A LOT TO DIGEST
Well you intend to be observant.Protons are positively charged and affect the constituation of what our solar companion will consume in 72 years from now,changing its heliosphere dynamics that is already being observed.Opposites attract and similar polarities repel,compression of the sun is already underway.


Given the relative strength of the solar wind (which is blowing protons and other things AWAY fro the sun), it's unlikely they're getting anywhere near the sun.

Remember the magnetic force is a weak force... much weaker than gravity. So I don't see how it could pull in something against a force that is flinging bigger things out into space and away from the sun.
sci-toys.com...


The moon is expanding away

It isn't. If it was swelling up, it would be getting closer as its crust got closer. Remember that "swelling up" of the planet (that this theory talks about) occurs from the inside. Like blowing up a balloon. One side doesn't get larger and "swell away" or "expand away."

The moon is stable. It isn't getting any larger. The small amount of dust falling on it hasn't increased its width much.


and the universe is accelerating away faster than expected,these are not made up.

Yes, the universe is expanding and we're getting better numbers as our instruments get better. No argument here!


Checkup the speed the sun is traveling through the galaxy


It hasn't changed. Otherwise we'd be sailing up and beyond the galaxy.


Carbon and all minerals are made from dying stars and spreads throughout the cosmos ,and is absorbed at varies stages of sun,planets and galaxies gravitational cycles into the breach of the expanding universe,none of this is made up


Very true!
.

Our planet expands and contracts through glacial periods,it is true,seriously.

However, that isn't true.


The process of water absorbtion has slowed down but will increase during the glacial period and expand the planet once again and the evaporation process begins again,more clouds ,more rain ,more renewal,eventually the world will be a waterworld ,but as the sun ages and expands due to dying processes and the earths geomagnet recedes ,water will evaporate to space totally.Until then we will live on a planet freezing and heating toward the ultimate expansion period,our iceages.


No, that doesn't happen. Water absorption is a function of pore space, and water doesn't absorb into frozen ground. There was a time period when the Earth had almost no ice on it, but it wasn't a waterworld. There was a very large continent in its middle (Pangea.)


The moon is moving away because of the expanding universe and because the moons mass cannot defy that energy,the earth can at a differential degree.

I don't think you read the article correctly -- English can be tricky to translate sometimes and technical and scientific English can be very troublesome.


Earth moving 15 cms per year away from the sun ....sorry did ,I,You,everybody miss something,the planet is moving away,which means in the past it was closer to the sun...mmm,how could there be a iceage then ,it would naturally be warmer? Got the synapses firing now.
edit on 13-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)


Milankovitch cycle. I thought I linked it. The Earth's orbit is very wobbly and there's a 25,000 year cycle that triggers ice ages.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
This statement is untrue in current physics,the electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity



Originally posted by Byrd

Remember the magnetic force is a weak force... much weaker than gravity.

Answer,reply en.wikipedia.org...

Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity, but vastly stronger, and therefore describes almost all macroscopic phenomena of everyday experience, ranging from the impenetrability of solids, friction, rainbows, lightning, and all human-made devices using electric current, such as television, lasers, and computers. Electromagnetism fundamentally determines all macroscopic, and many atomic level, properties of the chemical elements, including all chemical bonding.


Yes the expansion theory the way its discribed as watching the animation is over simplistic but my perspective is as stated the expansion of the earth through the process of ice age,expansion of freezing water and therefore expansion of crust in cycles over millional,in otherwords the crust is and was thicker and is being stretched outward ,overtime revealing and releasing magma .During iceage periods the earth accumalates more water and expansion on melting and release of the h20 from its solid state to fluidity add to that the moons pull overtime..
I am aware of the procession cycle and yes it to can and does play its part along with other factors as posted, this is my viewpoint,even though to some extent subjective in the context to the topic ,these variables have not been considered ontop of current thinking..
Currently there is a sea developing in ethiopia that was`nt there beforeblogs.discovermagazine.com...

Now a new study adds weight to the argument that the opening of this crack marks the first step in the formation of a new sea that may eventually separate East Africa from the rest of the continent. Says lead researcher Atalay Ayele: “The ocean’s formation is happening slowly, likely to take a few million years. It will stretch from the Afar depression (straddling Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti) down to Mozambique” [ABC News].

andapatheticlemming.blogspot.com...

A new study involving an international team of scientists and reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds the processes creating the rift are nearly identical to what goes on at the bottom of oceans, further indication a sea is in the region's future. "The same rift activity is slowly parting the Red Sea, too...." Seafloor spreading, continental drift, and other changes of Earth's surface over time have been observed - and accepted - for some time now. My most geologists, at any rate. What's surprising, apparently, is how abruptly this crack formed. "...'We know that seafloor ridges are created by a similar intrusion of magma into a rift, but we never knew that a huge length of the ridge could break open at once like this,' said Cindy Ebinger, professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Rochester and co-author of the study...." This is the sort of thing that keeps life from getting boring. And keeps us on our toes: "...The result shows that highly active volcanic boundaries along the edges of tectonic ocean plates may suddenly break apart in large sections, instead of in bits, as the leading theory held. And such sudden large-scale events on land pose a much more serious hazard to populations living near the rift than would several smaller events, Ebinger said...."


Thanks gringo
edit on 16-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
The people who support the plate tectonic drift theory and pretend that it is anything more than a theory continue to ignore the far bigger holes in the theory, that fails to explain -

1. What causes the continents to drift? It can't be the the formation of ridges in in the oceans, because new ocean floor is being formed throughout all of the oceans.

2. How does the continental plates force the ocean plates down into the much denser mantle. This makes no sense at all, and completely defies all laws of physics. The continents plowing across the pacific, supposedly decreasing the size of the Pacific Ocean, for which there is absolutely no proof, leave no large piles of rubble neither in front of the continents which should be pushed up as the continental plate grinds its way across the pacific, or behind in its wake. Take a sheet of plywood, weigh it down and pull it across some ground. You will see material build up in front of the sheet and a trail left behind. This does not exist, in fact just the opposite. Out in front of the American continents stretches wide smooth plains.

3. Where does the ocean plate go once pushed down into the mantle. Almost all of the mass if the tectonic plates exists below the sea floor, . The continents should either rise 13-14 KM, or the mantle must somehow carry away 13-14 KM of material, and for some explained reason carry this extra material out to the ocean ridges,.How and why would this happen. It is a ridiculous idea. How is it that the pacific plate getting pushed under N America, finds its way under all the N American plates, to rise up under the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

While widely accepted the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to support the tectonic floating plate theory, and far more evidence to support the expanding Earth theory, that has been presented here. Those who support the floating tectonic plate theory provide no evidence to explain the huge flaws in what they believe.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Well.here goes it
1.New ocean floor is being stretched by additional water from melting icecaps ,not due to global warming in the goretex sense but a fundamental component of the earths cycles in the expanding meduim of space,due to this increase volume of water the moon has greater affect to stretch the ocean floor as it to is being forced by the expanding universe,tugging the volume of water on earth ,hence stretching the crust !
2.There is no physics law defied ,infact they compliment each other by way of the moons gravitational perturberance of the volume of water ontop of the whole surface with only 1 thirds dry land.
3.The oceans cannot rise in the observable sense as the volume of water is constantly moving,and the sheer weight and energy of the ocean of water ,defies mountains to rise and subduction in ocean floor as you explained,although everybody and his cat knows the sea levels are rising,maybe historical accounts of flooding are more evidence of water being part of the whole picture of expansion,from melting periodal icecaps and re iceingt as I postulate in this thesis of new paradigm,when water freezes it expands,ergo...moving any rock,crust,expanding it,then melting and the moon does the rest by pulling the excess volume of water,so it is a continual process.contraction ,expansion,yes quite truly mother earth is allways giving birth.Yes ,to volcanic,and meteor interaction play there part but so does the suns solar cycle variation,which currently is being observed as a complete oddity,and time will reveal the true extent of changes that occur to sol(solomon),sun.
By the way venus transits the sun (sol)once only every 120 years and so be it I give you the morning star ,for anyone who knows what this implies..

and

Peace gringo. and rest my viewpoint.:up
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


While the Milankovitch cycle is claimed, there is no evidence that this cycle actually occurs.

First of all, the cycles of the ice ages varies considerably, and can only be claimed as a repetitive cycle very loosely. Such a wobble in the Earths axis and rotation around the sun should form a very precise pattern, and it just isn't there.

www.google.com...://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/antarctic_icecoreT.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffM asters/comment.html%3Fentrynum%3D1453%26tstamp%3D%26page%3D8&h=302&w=535&sz=34&tbnid=6A1gMcvt2LaaZM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dice%2Bage%2Bc ycles&zoom=1&q=ice+age+cycles&hl=en&usg=__LQPTnUWbMikGHfz63yms894VgcM=&sa=X&ei=3JWBTdjFDZL4swP28byHAg&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ9QEwCg

There is little reason to believe that slight variations in the distance the Earth orbit would change the energy received from the Sun a significant amount.

The Milankovitch cycle taught as fact, when there is very little evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong. The most likely cause of the ice ages is large events that vastly change Earths climate, such as volcanic eruptions and large asteroid strikes. We have seen proof of the effects that volcanic eruptions have on global climate. There is tremendous evidence of meteor strikes that had as great of an impact as volcanic eruptions.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



This statement is untrue in current physics,the electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity

The issue is not the strength of the force, but the observed strength of the force. The electromagnetic force balances out so that we do not observe the force from the Earth even though there a large number of charged particles in it. Gravity is always a cumulative force. Therefore, the effects of gravity are the dominant force in the solar system.


Yes the expansion theory the way its discribed as watching the animation is over simplistic but my perspective is as stated the expansion of the earth through the process of ice age,expansion of freezing water and therefore expansion of crust in cycles over millional,in otherwords the crust is and was thicker and is being stretched outward ,overtime revealing and releasing magma .

The expansion of ice over liquid water is a limited process. It does not cause continued expansion. The water on Earth represents a very small fraction of the matter on Earth. The ice is even less. None of this leads to the release of magma.

This crack in the Afar region is part of a spreading ridge that runs through the Rift Valley in Africa. There is another than runs through Iceland. These spreading ridges are offset by subduction zones at the other edges of the plates involved in the spreading. This "crack" exists. It is well known. The existence of a spreading ridge passing under a continent does not mean that the Earth is expanding. The processes here fit in well with the plate tectonic theory.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The people who support the plate tectonic drift theory and pretend that it is anything more than a theory continue to ignore the far bigger holes in the theory, that fails to explain -

Do not confuse plate tectonics with continental drift. They are very different ideas. Plate tectonics is a theory. Theories are based on facts. The facts are very clear that plates exist. The facts are very clear that the Earth is NOT expanding.


1. What causes the continents to drift? It can't be the the formation of ridges in in the oceans, because new ocean floor is being formed throughout all of the oceans. /quote]
The continents do not drift. The continents are moved because they are imbedded in plates. The plates are moved by the underlying mantle convection cells.


2. How does the continental plates force the ocean plates down into the much denser mantle. This makes no sense at all, and completely defies all laws of physics. The continents plowing across the pacific, supposedly decreasing the size of the Pacific Ocean, for which there is absolutely no proof, leave no large piles of rubble neither in front of the continents which should be pushed up as the continental plate grinds its way across the pacific, or behind in its wake. Take a sheet of plywood, weigh it down and pull it across some ground. You will see material build up in front of the sheet and a trail left behind. This does not exist, in fact just the opposite. Out in front of the American continents stretches wide smooth plains.

Where do I begin with all of this confusion? The continents do not plow across the surface of the Earth. That is continental drift. Plate tectonics has the continents imbedded in plates and the plates are in motion. Why can't a lighter material be forced into a denser material. I am not saying that that is the case, but why not? There are no laws of physics that prevent that. And yes there is proof that the Pacific plate is getting smaller. Japan moved closer to the US during this quake. Direct measurements after this last quake show that the Pacific plate is smaller. Your plywood model is an invalid model. The plates are not as rigid as you suggest. There are no gaps between the plates as you suggest. There are boundaries between the plates. These boundaries can be turbulent zones where plates bend and are forced down.


3. Where does the ocean plate go once pushed down into the mantle. Almost all of the mass if the tectonic plates exists below the sea floor, . The continents should either rise 13-14 KM, or the mantle must somehow carry away 13-14 KM of material, and for some explained reason carry this extra material out to the ocean ridges,.How and why would this happen. It is a ridiculous idea. How is it that the pacific plate getting pushed under N America, finds its way under all the N American plates, to rise up under the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

The plate is heated and "melts" back into the mantle. There is no reason to suppose that the continents should rise for any reason. The continents are imbedded in the plates. The mantle is plastic. It deforms. It has distinct properties that separate it from the core and crust. Your suggestion that the plates do some weird tricks from subduction zone to spreading ridge suggests that you should get some knowledge about the theory before discussing it.


While widely accepted the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to support the tectonic floating plate theory, and far more evidence to support the expanding Earth theory, that has been presented here. Those who support the floating tectonic plate theory provide no evidence to explain the huge flaws in what they believe.

The only flaw here is your understanding of plate tectonics. Your suggestions as to what the theory states about plates and plate interactions and the mantle make it clear that you need to take the time to learn how plate tectonics works. There are many good books available at public libraries.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Um, yeah, that is quite the rambling rant you have posted.

Take a plate of steel, pile some sandstone on top if it, and try to push the sandstone into the steel.

This might be a bit of an extreme, but the reality is the same.

For a continental plate to move on top of an oceanic plate, either the continental plate must rise up over 10 KM, or over 10 KM of material must be moved somewhere.

That is elemental physics.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gringoboy
This statement is untrue in current physics,the electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity


Agh. Yes, you're quite right. Electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity. I had one of those "I posted WHAT?" moments sometime yesterday.

Good catch.

But the expanding planet theory still isn't correct.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
While Webbots are a wonderful source of information, much of it prescient, there is no way in hell that his expando planet model fits any past history of earth, in no way explains how or why mastadons are found in siberia with flowers still in their bellies and frozen solid as if it happened instantly...

With all due respect to all those frequenting this forum or reading my words...this particular explanation is complete bullcrap and to Clifs dismay, way off the mark.

What is more truthful is to believe your own eyes and ears and stop looking for wierd and bizzare reasons for earth changes related to magnetic influences and more than likely a arogue planet.

I have personally seen the two suns...so i know it is true...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by poet1b
 

Well.here goes it
1.New ocean floor is being stretched by additional water from melting icecaps ,not due to global warming in the goretex sense but a fundamental component of the earths cycles in the expanding meduim of space,due to this increase volume of water the moon has greater affect to stretch the ocean floor as it to is being forced by the expanding universe,tugging the volume of water on earth ,hence stretching the crust !


The melting of an ice sheet always causes the land to rise slightly (but not feet or inches or miles). And there's no increase in the amount of H2) on Earth. If more of it is in liquid form, you get higher tides.

Land movement doesn't take place along the orbital plane of the moon. Alaska, for instance, isn't close to that area and (using your model) shouldn't be having volcanos and earthquakes. And we should be seeing the earth getting bigger and plane travel times taking a lot longer.


2.There is no physics law defied ,infact they compliment each other by way of the moons gravitational perturberance of the volume of water ontop of the whole surface with only 1 thirds dry land.


The moon does move water a very slight amount. But it doesn't move land. Land is too heavy. It doesn't affect aquifers, either... we don't get more water or variations in water due to the moon's relative position.


3.The oceans cannot rise in the observable sense as the volume of water is constantly moving,and the sheer weight and energy of the ocean of water ,defies mountains to rise and subduction in ocean floor as you explained,although everybody and his cat knows the sea levels are rising


Subduction doesn't affect water. Mountains occur where two plates push together. If you have an "expanding earth" there is no way for mountains to form.


maybe historical accounts of flooding are more evidence of water being part of the whole picture of expansion,

If the Earth was expanding, no floods should ever occur and the ocean would be a lot lower. (we could test this with a model -- put water in a little clay frame, and then expand the frame. You'll see the water level gets lower.)


from melting periodal icecaps and re iceingt as I postulate in this thesis of new paradigm,when water freezes it expands,ergo...moving any rock,crust,expanding it,then melting and the moon does the rest by pulling the excess volume of water,so it is a continual process.contraction ,expansion,yes quite truly mother earth is allways giving birth.


Water freezing and expanding in rocks breaks it down to soil (there's a whole big field of study called soil science, and you have to learn about it if you're studying geology, archaeology, paleontology, and any of the range sciences and natural sciences and ecology.) But that's on the surface of the Earth and not deep below (as you can find out by looking at drill core samples.)


Yes ,to volcanic,and meteor interaction play there part but so does the suns solar cycle variation,which currently is being observed as a complete oddity


I was pretty sure that the sun's cycle variation is mostly explained and not a complete oddity.


and time will reveal the true extent of changes that occur to sol(solomon),sun. By the way venus transits the sun (sol)once only every 120 years and so be it I give you the morning star ,for anyone who knows what this implies.


Depends on what culture you belong to. As far as we can tell (written history), Islamic scholars were the first to record a transit: en.wikipedia.org...

Transits take place every on a 243 year period, though.





new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join