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

reply to post by gringoboy

1.Gravity is most certainly a contractive force ,because solar dynamics attract and contract hydrogen from space into helium and continueing the deuteriumm processes that keep those elements hot and radiating various light frquencies and energy rays towatds earth without which(this contractive gravity)those life giving essential rays would not exist and a series of stages of contraction of gravitational force will cause a red giant,supernova or black hole(which is the ultimate contractive force).

It's attractive, not contractive.

Gravity is not the issue which causes fusion. It sets up the process, but is not the force involved in fusion. Fusion does not generate photons of light, but that's a separate issue.

Gravity is an attractive force. If an effect of gravity in some situations is a contraction, then that is an effect which can be described that way. In general, gravity is attractive, not contractive.

[quote]2.If there is no fluctuations between earth and sun then how come on jan 3rd the earth is closest to the sun(earthquake watch month) and ecliptically furthest away in june.
You are confusing issues again. The gravitational force between objects is based on a simple and rather elegant formula. This formula developed by Newton described all but relativistic situations.

You are claiming a fluctuation based on distance? That's not a fluctuation in gravity. That is simply how gravity works.

3.It is documented in earlier post(no requirement to respond)

You claim that you've documented that the Earth is expanding? That's a laughable falsehood. You've done no such thing.

4.How do you in your infiite wisdom explain the drifting of earth,and moon away from each other,and away from the sun ,without a external force excerted on it and equalibrium between both forces of dynamics.

Let's use the article you linked to. It called tidal interactions. Energy is transferred from one object to the next. The Sun slows its rotation and the Earth speeds up. Thus the Earth moves to a farther orbit.

reply to post by stereologist


It is funny how you never bother to check any facts.

You have yet to provide anything that backs off your claims, based primarily on science mythology that people often confuse with real science, confusing theory with fact.

reply to post by stereologist

Perhaps this will answer contractive force birthing the very star you imply means nothing as a gravitational context within space,note gravitational collapse(in short contraction).stellar evolution

Stellar evolution begins with the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud (GMC). Typical GMCs are roughly 100 light-years (9.5×1014 km) across and contain up to 6,000,000 solar masses (1.2×1037 kg). As it collapses, a GMC breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas releases gravitational potential energy as heat. As its temperature and pressure increase, a fragment condenses into a rotating sphere of superhot gas known as a protostar.[1]

and more,and more.

Maturity Eventually, the core exhausts its supply of hydrogen, and without the outward pressure generated by the fusion of hydrogen to counteract the force of gravity, it contracts until either electron degeneracy becomes sufficient to oppose gravity or the core becomes hot enough (around 100 megakelvins) for helium fusion to begin. Which of these happens first depends upon the star's mass.

Note force of gravity to sustain the process without which there is no sun,it to is focused in the stellar medium to exist by stellar geology from interacting forces in space.

reply to post by gringoboy

Perhaps this will answer contractive force birthing the very star you imply means nothing as a gravitational context within space,note gravitational collapse(in short contraction)

Gravity is an attractive force. All you are showing here is that one of the effects possible is contraction. That does not make gravity contractive.

Note force of gravity to sustain the process without which there is no sun,it to is focused in the stellar medium to exist by stellar geology from interacting forces in space.

As a side note understand that geology is geo - ology or study of the Earth. To say stellar geology makes no sense just like saying gravity is contractive is incorrect.

reply to post by poet1b

You have yet to provide anything that backs off your claims, based primarily on science mythology that people often confuse with real science, confusing theory with fact. /quote]
The burden of showing evidence for the expanding Earth is on you, not me.

BTW, theories are based on facts. Theory in the vernacular is confused with fact, but I never use theory in the vernacular sense.

So please go out there and see if there is any evidence whatsoever for the expanding Earth. So far nothing at all has been shown to support this claim.

reply to post by gringoboy

Notice cosmic expansion and change in gravitational constant,or expanding dark matter?
Everything that happens to the crust and size and structure of this planet is determined by the solar constants,even ice ages,even though ,it is being discovered as we type that its not acting so constant,many scratching heads.These odd fluctuations cause much variable changes to all planetoids.

I forgot to address this claim.

Very little that happens to the crust is due to "Solar constants". For instance take earthquakes and volcanoes. These are due to internal issues of the Earth and not the sun. Ice ages are related to the sun and lots of other issues.

The motions of the plates are due to the mantle and not "solar constants". The magnetic field of the Earth is generated by convection cells if the outer core, not "solar constants."

Some issues that might be sort of due to "solar constants" whatever that is supposed to mean are: glaciation, erosion, and some other forms of mass wasting.

reply to post by stereologist

Gravity is an attractive force. All you are showing here is that one of the effects possible is contraction. That does not make gravity contractive.

I don`t play dice with grammar as both terms mean the same thing,or you are not going to ssuggest to everyone that gravity expands.

If there was no sun the inner core would cool,no magnetic accumalation of friction and interaction of energy and eventually no internal thermal fluidity,suggesting the core of the planet has no bearing to the sun is ridiculious, friction is what gives us our core due to the iron,nickel composition heating and recycling of the magma up and out from the core to volcanoes and the atlantic rift.
Theres some stellar interaction.www.icteachers.co.uk...

Con`tract´ive

Gravity Gravity is a force that for us is always directed downwards. But to say that gravity acts downwards is not correct. Gravity acts down, no matter where you stand on the Earth. It is better to say that on Earth gravity pulls objects towards the centre of the Earth. So no matter where you are on Earth all objects fall to the ground

1. Tending to contract; having the property or power or power of contracting.

at·trac·tive j. 1. Having the power to attract.

What is gravity? Gravity is a force that attracts objects together. On earth this force attracts everything to Earth.

Interesting then poetb is correct everything is being attracted (contracted)to earth ,yeah, can`t have it both ways,get off a that horse buddy !.
Pioneer and others are projectiles that skimmed of the boundary of the gravity of a orbiting planetoid at the boundary direction to the orbit and deflected from those planetoids rotation,otherwise they crashed into the planet and not out into space..

reply to post by gringoboy

I don`t play dice with grammar as both terms mean the same thing,or you are not going to ssuggest to everyone that gravity expands.

It's okay if you don't understand the difference or that gravity is not a contractive force. There is a difference between the force and any particular effects it may impart on a system. In time you can learn the difference.

If there was no sun the inner core would cool

False. The sun does not heat the interior of the Earth.

suggesting the core of the planet has no bearing to the sun is ridiculious

Seriously, take an intro course in geology. These are usually in large lecture halls and you can sneak in and enjoy the lectures without even being a student.

friction is what gives us our core due to the iron,nickel composition heating and recycling of the magma up and out from the core to volcanoes and the atlantic rift.

False. Friction is not the source of heat.

1. Having the power to attract.

Tending to contract; having the property or power or power of contracting.

Here you are simply showing that you do not understand the difference between the force and effects that force may cause on a system. An attractive force may cause some systems to contract. There are cases where gravitational systems can be expansive. Consider the Pioneer and Voyager spacecrafts. Due to gravity alone they are being ejected from the solar system. The system including these spacecraft is expanding as these spacecraft have reached velocities sufficient to escape the gravitational attraction of the Sun.

Pangaea is a poor joke. Someone explain how Australia and south america were almost touching in the pacific then?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


What Pacific are you talking about? At the time of Pangaea there was no Pacific, but rather a single ocean.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

What Pacific are you talking about? At the time of Pangaea there was no Pacific, but rather a single ocean.

South America and Australia were almost touching in the Pacific. Pangea claims that the west coast of north America never touched the east coast of Asia which is a false claim.

New Zealand was once the tip of South America. Hawaii was part of Baja California.



The west coast of North America was connected to the east coast of Asia and Australia. Bottom line is the earth indeed expanded and the Pangea theory is junk science.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

South America and Australia were almost touching in the Pacific. Pangea claims that the west coast of north America never touched the east coast of Asia which is a false claim.

New Zealand was once the tip of South America. Hawaii was part of Baja California.

Where did you get any of these ideas?
Hawaii was never a part of Baja. Hawaii has never been a part of any part of North America. It sits over a hot spot.

The geology shows that North America and Asia were not in contact when Pangaea existed. Your claim is false. South America and Australia were not almost touching as you claim.

BTW, where did you get that image?

The west coast of North America was connected to the east coast of Asia and Australia. Bottom line is the earth indeed expanded and the Pangea theory is junk science.

The bottom line is that spouting rubbish is rubbish. The expanding Earth claims fail miserably.

Where did the extra mass come from?

reply to post by stereologist


I am not suprised at your lack of knowledge over the subject. Research my friend research you have much to learn. I mean much. I cant emphasize that more. Your argument is based on theory and nothing more.

The endemic commonality of the flowering plants and of the conifers of New Zealand and southernmost Chile presents what he calls "a grand anomaly." Though 9,000 kilometers apart, both areas share the "earth's oldest and most primitive flowering plants, side by side with the earth's most ancient conifers."

Earth was much smaller and the continents were one. Imagine the argument between the flat earthers and the people who knew the world was roundish. It would be similar to this. Good luck flat earther.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

I am not suprised at your lack of knowledge over the subject. Research my friend research you have much to learn. I mean much. I cant emphasize that more. Your argument is based on theory and nothing more.

Learn what a theory means in science.
Your position is based on misrepresentations, falsehoods, and deceptions.

The endemic commonality of the flowering plants and of the conifers of New Zealand and southernmost Chile presents what he calls "a grand anomaly." Though 9,000 kilometers apart, both areas share the "earth's oldest and most primitive flowering plants, side by side with the earth's most ancient conifers."

This is explained quite nicely by Pangaea

Earth was much smaller and the continents were one. Imagine the argument between the flat earthers and the people who knew the world was roundish. It would be similar to this. Good luck flat earther.

I would consider the expanding Earth position to be like that of Nibiru-heads. It is full of lack of understanding of science, and basic principles of logic, and relies on misrepresentations and lies to exist.

Where does the additional mass come from that allows the Earth to expand?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

 

"Expando Planet"?

Sorry, not very plausible in the least. Something like that might have been able to fool enough people, some years ago....but, technology today is the proof of the ridiculousness of such a hypothesis (heck, even "hypothesis" is giving that idea too much credit!).

Ever heard of "GPS"?

Ya know, it is very, very accurate. The consumer-level devices you may be familiar with are amazing enough, to be sure (and, only because the military allows it....in the early days, GPS signals were intentionally made less accurate...."scrambled" a bit, as it were....and the military had the decoder programs).

Today, they let it be much more accurate (for public use), but still, there are degrees of better accuracy possible, IF you have the authority to access it.

Point is: IF the Earth were "growing" or "expanding", then GPS technology would reveal this to be the case.

It doesn't. In fact, research into GPS devices being used to track tectonic plate movements....for example, along the San Andreas Fault.

Hmmmm...not sure why GPS plays a role in proving the earth don't expand.. Now surely any noticeable expansion would be over 1000's or millions of years,so calling GPS to defend your argument that the earth dont expand is a none starter.

Now i've never really gave the earth expansion much though,till coming across this thread,which i found very imformative,and i can see the glareing logic in the expansion of the earth.

I shall give this more research for my own peace of mind and understanding.

reply to post by stereologist


Silly. Your whole entire response was meaningless. Dont confuse Gondwanaland with Pangea theory... Theory Theory theory.......

This grand anomaly is resolved by evidence presented herein, which indicates that New Zealand was once part of South America on a fully consolidated Gondwanaland during the late Paleozoic more than 300 million years ago. A New Zealand block was then adjoined to the southwestern coast of Chile.

Nothing you presented is fact, just a theory.



A 5 year old can pick this out. Why cant you.....


Added the upper west coast, as you can see there is evidence the pacific spread was where the major expansion occurred.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Silly. Your whole entire response was meaningless. Dont confuse Gondwanaland with Pangea theory... Theory Theory theory.......

Obviously it would be useful for you to learn the difference between theory and fact.
Obviously you do not understand Pangaea. I never discussed Gondwanaland.

Everything you have posted has been false. That's what expanding Earth proponents do.

You still have made no effort to explain where the mass comes from to allow the Earth to expand. That's a show stopper isn't it?

Added the upper west coast, as you can see there is evidence the pacific spread was where the major expansion occurred.

What is the purpose of these images? What is it that you seem to be unable to say?

What spread are you talking about? Why are the Hawaiian islands and Emporer chain marked in red?

Please explain the origin and meaning of these images. This is not a guessing game. This is your post and you seem unwilling or unable to do anything except be obtuse.

of course i have read clifs expando model but can not seem to get my hands around the obvious...that being if the planet is expanding how are some tectonic plates subducting, and others slip sliding.

seems to me that if the planet is expanding as per cliff higher than most, then all plate boundaries would shoot magma and volcanos would explode as when a person blows up a balloon...the whole thing gets bigger...

anyway, i sense this expando model is cover for magnetic anomolies causing the earth to twist and turn or rather wobble, causing the changes...

plus, expando does not explain the winds, weather, or tides...as clearly as an earth wobble does...

reply to post by stereologist

BTW, theories are based on facts. Theory in the vernacular is confused with fact, but I never use theory in the vernacular sense.

So please go out there and see if there is any evidence whatsoever for the expanding Earth. So far nothing at all has been shown to support this claim.

Theories are based on evidence that is believed to support those theories. It is clear that you don't grasp this concept. Yes, you do throw around tectonic theory as fact in the vernacular sense.

Considerable evidence has been shown on this thread that there is reason to believe that the Expanding Earth Theory is a real possibility, and the only bases you have presented to oppose this idea has been to claim that the Plate Tectonic Theory is fact in the vernacular sense.

Your entire argument, as it has been presented, sounds like the poorly formed opinion of a teenager who thinks that he, or she, knows it all.