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: 19
85
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CVinWA
 


The Moon once was liquid. There are lots of claims in this thread that everything grows. Why not the Moon?


Anything is possible until it's confirmed it's not(such as Earth being flat/center of Universe).

In science nothing is possible until it's confirmed. In the case of the expanding Earth there is no evidence it is happening. There is no evidence that the Earth is changing size. It was offered as an alternative to continental drift before plate tectonics was recognized. It simply was a means of explaining how the continents seemed to have matching borders yet were far apart. The suggestion does not match what we see of the world.

As for Mars, where are the "cracks" that should be there. Mars does not have plates. Mars does not experience plate tectonics. So Mars is a great example of the failure of the expanding Earth claim.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Modern science has only been around for ~200 years, not nearly long enough to discredit any plausible theories for the Solar System, which includes Expando Planet theory.

Why would you say that? It is simple to show that there are subductions zones which are not allowed in an expanding Earth idea. Mars and the Moon show no signs of the cracks we'd expect from expansion. The existence of many supercontinents in the past shows expando is falso.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Mars doesn't have plate tectonics?

Why is the Earth so special as to have plates?

or

Why is Mars so special as to not have plates?

Is it just luck of the draw when it comes to planetary formation?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CVinWA
 


The Earth isn't special. Other objects in our solar system have plates. Venus is continually renewing its surface. That renewal makes it difficult to interpret whether or not plates existed on Venus. Mars does not show plates. Some of the Galilean Moons show evidence of plate activity.

One of the problems with plate tectonics in our system is that the Earth and Venus are the only large terrestrial planets. Mars comes next and Mercury is small. The rest are gas giants or moons.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I have to say it is funny how you spew your pseudo science with such conviction.

The evidence has been presented several times on the thread, you just choose to ignore it.

Here is a link that puts things in a realistic perspective.

www.geologynet.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CVinWA
 


All valid questions.

The theory is that all planets are expanding, including the gas giants.

I am not sure how much this would affect the Earth's orbit around the sun.

I am not sure that dark matter is a viable theory.

I'm nut sure how much effort is put into measuring any of these changes.

Part of the theory is that the giant dinosaurs of old couldn't survive on our current planet because of the increase in gravity.

The weakness of the theory is how did the planet gain so much mass to expand. The weakness of the other theories is what happens to the plates that are pushed under the moving continental plates.

I think another possibility is that in the past we might have gone through clouds in space, during which time the Earth would have gained a far greater level of mass than at present, and this would also explain the ice ages.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
It has been noted that mars has the largest volcanoes and the explanation is that the magma that was present flowed from them in large volumes and over long timescales still erupt,even though mars has no techtonic plates,so therefore the interior of the planetoid excretes magma but because of its relative distance fro the sun the magma cools quicker,slowing a expansion process on mars,however it should be noted=source

Why such large volcanoes?
The answer to that question is that nobody really knows why the volcanoes on Mars have grown to such extreme proportions and a number of theories have been put forward to attempt to explain it. Probably the most likely reason is that Mars has no plate tectonics, so the surface of the planet does not move over the mantle below, therefore hot spots which cause such volcanoes as these, are allowed to remain under one area for a very long time, so the volcanoes keep growing.

Notice the keep growing bit !
edit on 25-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That's a terrible article you linked to. The first failure I ran into was the following:

The first evidence for plate movement was, of course, found by Wegener in 1925. This was a result of a comparison of the continental edges of South America and South Africa.

That shows that the author of this dribble does not understand the difference between continental drift and plate tectonics. No surprise there.

There are a number of other mistakes and then we come to the description of hot spots which is very wrong.
Hot Spots


The evidence has been presented several times on the thread, you just choose to ignore it.

That's just another falsehood.

Although your link is to old material from a website set up to sell software it does state that:

The slow-expanding Earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks evidence. It does not suggest why the Earth would expand, why continental drift began so late in the Earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from.

The biggest problem for the expanding Earth is: just where does all of the extra matter come from?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The weakness of the theory is how did the planet gain so much mass to expand. The weakness of the other theories is what happens to the plates that are pushed under the moving continental plates.

Not true at all. Seismic data shows descending plates. The data shows plates being subducted.


I think another possibility is that in the past we might have gone through clouds in space, during which time the Earth would have gained a far greater level of mass than at present, and this would also explain the ice ages. [/.quote]
We can look to the Moon and see that there is hardly any material on the surface. There is only a few cms of material that has accumulated in billions of years.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



Notice the keep growing bit !


Everyone please notice that it says "the volcanoes keep growing. " It doe snot suggest in any way that Mars itself is growing. The volcanoes grow and nothing else.

Mars is an excellent example of the failure of the ludicrous expanding Earth claims. The Moon is another example of the monumental failure of this failed idea.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Earth has expanded, this is fact. Not believing it doesn't change reality.


Oh stereo, if you would spend more time researching than posting nonsense then you might actually learn something.

The earth has expanded. The earth was covered in water, when it expanded the waters receded.

You should pay attention to your attitude considering that you believe in a theory that is quite a joke and outdated, the theory that you are holding on to is flawed and your version of that flawed theory becomes more flawed with your lack of understanding and means of interpreting it.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
dble post

edit on 25-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
So far no one has made any effort to show that the Earth has expanded.

So far no one has been able to explain where the extra mass comes from.

The latter issue is the crux. It is the fatal flaw in the claim of an expanding Earth.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
This is expanding earth, Australia is close to south america . Pangaea theory claims this did not happen.


Pangaea theory omits this. Pangaea theory also redraws and does a bunch of funny editing to make it work. ITs flawed but we should be thankful of the Pangaea theory and its failure. It became a needed stepping stone to the expanding earth theory.

As you can see Pangaea theory always ignores the fact that the North and south American coasts also contact Eurasia and Australia not to mention Antarctica new Zealand Hawaii..... but on a much smaller earth.

Except it. You will feel great.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




Pangaea theory omits this. Pangaea theory also redraws and does a bunch of funny editing to make it work. ITs flawed but we should be thankful of the Pangaea theory and its failure. It became a needed stepping stone to the expanding earth theory.


Pangaea omits what? Please clear up this vague statement.

The rest of the post about Pangaea is quite vague with comments about redraws and editing.

Regardless of these vague statements about the concept of Pangaea, the one certain issue is that the expanding Earth claims are fatally flaw because no one shows how the Earth could expand, has expanded, or where new matter comes from. An expanding Earth is a completely failed idea.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



As you can see Pangaea theory always ignores the fact that the North and south American coasts also contact Eurasia and Australia not to mention Antarctica new Zealand Hawaii..... but on a much smaller earth.

This commentary is completely wrong in all regards. It makes no sense whatsoever. The only reason this is probably being claimed is that it is needed to prop up the failed expanding Earth claim which is a dead and failed theory.

The shape of Pangaea is based on studies of the movements of the land masses.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Why did earth expand? Very good questions. If one would have the perfect answer to that it would defeat the meaning of the word theory. Dont worry, people are working on it. Many geologists that I know subscribe to it. Pangaea is a theory, a failing one and a new model is taking its place, who would of thunk that humans can evolve?

edit on 25-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



If one would have the perfect answer to that it would defeat the meaning of the word theory.

That's laughable. If the evidence does not exist, then it can't be a scientific theory. It becomes a wacko speculation or as the word is used in the vernacular, a so-called theory.


Dont worry, people are working on it. Many geologists that I know subscribe to it. Pangaea is a theory, a failing one and a new model is taking its place, who would of thunk that humans can evolve?

Really? I simply don't believe that. If people are working on it as you claim, then why isn't the material being published in peer reviewed journals?

Pangaea is a theory because the data leads people to that conclusion. Studies of land masses show that Pangaea existed. Plate movements show how the land masses moved. The data for Pangaea is strong.

The expanding Earth claims have no supporting data. It is been recognized as a failure for decades.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I don't know much about geology but;

1)couldn't subduction zones be caused by mass pushing the plates up (expanding Earth) so that they "grind","slide", and eventually "fracture"? is it possible that the plates aren't "sliding" under each other, but are actually expanding and colliding with each other?
note: could oceans currents be created by magma currents? what would this explain if it was the case? (the expanding of the oceans?)

2)With a diameter of 6,800 km, Mars is 53% of Earths size. That's ~1/2 of Earths current size. NealAdams says that Earth was 1/2 its current size some hundreds of millions of years ago, about the size of current day Mars. If there were no "oceans" or evidence of "plates" on Earth when it was 1/2 of its current size, couldn't Mars go through the same process and obtain "plates" and "oceans" in millions of years if the planet was "activated" similar to the way Earth must have been "activated" grow (could be due to age, the sun, or other gravitational influences)?

I assume that this isn't accepted "science", so I brand it as my opinion and I want you to feel free to dispute it. Also, I cannot provide evidence to support my theory, because as I have said before, I am not a scientist. I do not have an education in planetary geology. I did not go to college to get a degree that would certify my opinions in this matter. I aim to ask questions that might help me understand how things work.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Yepper, it considered to have been pretty much proven that Australia and Antarctica were once connected to Northern America, which means the Pangaea theory is pretty much toast.

How do we explain that there are ancient fossils of sea creatures in the mountains without recognizing that they must have been under the sea.

We know the ocean floors are expanding, this is also something that the plate tectonics theory has recognized. This fits in with an expanding Earth theory. We also do not know what caused the ice ages.

To me, it all points to a period in Earths history when we must have been inundated with matter from space, which explains why and how Earth expanded.

Here is a link on the tectonics theory which clearly states that sea floors are spreading.

www.platetectonics.com...


Today, the ideas of sea-floor spreading and subduction explain clearly why so many of the world’s volcanoes are situated on the Pacific island arcs, the Ring of Fire, where earth’s tectonic plates are being subducted beneath deep ocean trenches.


Spreading means expanding, which stereologist continues to deny, like a priest instead of a scientist. If the ring of fire is due to continents movement, why is S America moving East as opposed to moving west. The answer is quite apparent, the pacific sea floor west of S America is spreading/expanding, moving S America east.

The Pacific Ocean is not getting smaller, it is getting bigger. Most of the Pacific lies west of S America.



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join