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: 22
85
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Here made this just for you just now in under 10 min. The continents were all one on a smaller solid globe . As you can see north america fits nicely into Asia


Cant be debunked. You have the right not to believe it tho.
Some people just cannot comprehend nor can they on a physical level. What can you do?
edit on 27-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


edit on 27-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Stereologist, We know about the matter that covers the earth, there is more than one theory about how that has occurred. There is a theoretical explanation covered well in Clif's work that is not included in your list of three. Leads me to believe you have not yet read his entire article. Your explanation of theory vs. fact is only half right. It works both ways. At CERN they are searching for particles that have never been observed in fact, it is theory that is leading them to search for the truth about their speculations in order to establish fact, one way or another. If we only explored observable fact we would know nothing about the unseen, we have been smart enough to know there is a lot more to the universe than what we can see, we start with theories about what may be and then look for evidence. Other times it is the other way around, such as I see a rock on the ground, how did it get there?

Your posts seem a bit emotional, like anger at anyone challenging your long held beliefs without reading and studying the referenced article. I would say that the idea a big ball of molten iron found itself inexplicably in a cold orbit around the sun and that a shell of matter began to form around it by yet unknown processes to be equally laughable. But that's why I'm here, to become better informed by the debate.

It would help a lot if you read the article and then gave us point by point responses to rebut the components of the theory presented. A good start would be to explain that molten iron in orbit bit and give us your theories and facts about the genesis of the earth. I am a psychotherapist by trade and just an avid amateur at all of this. I'm open to any ideas, theories or established scientific facts and would love to learn what you know in a more thoughtful format.

Scientists discovered a long thread of plasma moving through space not long ago. They admitted it was a phenomena never seen before and that their established theories could not even support it's existence, that it's reality would be a model-changer. They assume that it is being held together by strong electromagnetic forces not previously understood which lends some credence to the idea that a ball of plasma ejected from the sun in the early years of our solar system could in fact come to a stop in a cold orbit and yet hold together, interactive energies from the sun and surrounding space might then play a role in generating a shell around it which would solidify due to the extreme coldness around it and leave the inner plasma core intact.

It just makes more sense to me than huge balls of molten iron arriving and stopping in multiple orbits around the sun and sitting there until Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars could figure out how to develop their shells.

So please continue, tell us how all this came to be. Yours, Plus1



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Expanding Earth theory explains the mountains.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Plus1
 


Here is a link about the electro-magnetic ribbon seen in space:
www.universetoday.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



with research into a theory

There is no research being done here. If anyone did even the slightest research they would see that this is a farce.

I have made specific references to specific image in my replies. You have created a set of fake images which do not match geological processes such as thinking that the Hawaiian Islands would ever have been connected to North America. Twice I asked about the red zones you marked on an image of the Pacific. You neglected to respond either time because you know that these images are fakes and do not represent anything in the history of the world.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I see you've created a farcical video which shows a scene that never existed in Earth;s history.

This is nothing more than a hoax being perpetrated in ATS and it is against the rules of ATS to knowingly perpetrate a hoax.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Plus1
 



At CERN they are searching for particles that have never been observed in fact, it is theory that is leading them to search for the truth about their speculations in order to establish fact, one way or another.

Please tell us about any particles being searched for at CERN that form matter. There are none are there?


I would say that the idea a big ball of molten iron found itself inexplicably in a cold orbit around the sun and that a shell of matter began to form around it by yet unknown processes to be equally laughable.

If that is what you think is suggested for the formation of the Earth then you need to take a basic course in astronomy or geology.


A good start would be to explain that molten iron in orbit bit and give us your theories and facts about the genesis of the earth.

Why would anyone start with a situation which never happened?


It just makes more sense to me than huge balls of molten iron arriving and stopping in multiple orbits around the sun and sitting there until Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars could figure out how to develop their shells.

Repeating nonsense several times is still nonsense. Where did you ever get this ludicrous idea? It is even more far fetched than the nonsense of an expanding Earth.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Can you explain the material? I don't want videos. They are a waste of time.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
[snip] Great work guys. You see I am not a firm believer in anything, I have tested Pangaea and it is partially correct but it never sat right with me ever since I heard about it as a child. Now that I have seen the expanding earth theory it begins to explain alot more. Theories for ya. Good debate. Saying something isnt so without proof is just plain stupid.


Made this gif. Shows you how the continent broke apart as the pacific expanded.


absolute classic post...had me spitting tea


it so obvious that earth expansion and continental drift theory is correct in my mind...you can clearly see the strecth marks.
edit on 27/3/11 by masqua because: Removed personal attack in quote



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Plus1
 


It's not an EM ribbon. It is a thin section of space showing higher EM emissions.


They admitted it was a phenomena never seen before and that their established theories could not even support it's existence


That's not what the article states. Below is what the article stated.


they suggest that these new findings will prompt a change in our understanding of the heliosphere and the processes that shape it.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Sigh....

Come on Guys !

Do we really need to come in here every few pages ?

Post On Topic and Stop the snide remarks, veiled insults and confrontational attitudes !



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jbird
 


Point well taken, thanks much for the help, appears you posted at the same time of my last post before I could read it, but I will happily comply. I do hope we get more posts with new information or viewpoints, Clif's article covers a lot of ground and lays out two competing theories about a myriad of earth features related to them, each one can appear unrelated if taken out of the context presented in the entire article. Thanks again.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jbird
 


Point well taken, thanks much for the help, appears you posted at the same time of my last post before I could read it, but I will happily comply. I do hope we get more posts with new information or viewpoints, Clif's article covers a lot of ground and lays out two competing theories about a myriad of earth features related to them, each one can appear unrelated if taken out of the context presented in the entire article. Thanks again.
edit on 27-3-2011 by Plus1 because: Any way to remove the duplicate, only hit reply once.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Have any of you all checked out this link that I provided earlier, that was posted in another thread?

If the expanding planet theory tickles your noodle, then this out to really open your eyes.

sites.google.com...

Once again, it comes from this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

By mnemeth1



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
There have been some requests about a nonsense story of accretion on a molten ball of iron. I wondered where this odd story came from. It has nothing to do with any theory of solar system formation.

Apparently, this is in reference to a web page that was linked to in the OP. The web page has mistakenly been called an article as if was ever published.

I started to read this junk science page but stopped as I soon realized it was baloney. Let's take a look at a little of it to see what baloney it is.

I did a search for iron in the web page and found the following:

First, much of his understanding of how a pole flip occurs, as well as how a crustal slip may occur, is dependent upon the idea of the center of the earth having a rotating mass of molten iron, that is creating the planet earth's magnetic field by virtue of its spin.

Basic mistakes here:
1. Pole flips have never occurred. Maybe the writer meant magnetic reversal.
2. Crustal slips do not occur.
3. Neither issue is related to the center of the Earth having an iron core.
4. The Earth's magnetic field is not due to the spin of the core.


The earth's magnetic field, humanities shield, is failing, and has a period that is about 11,800 years between re-charges.

Here is the next part and it is full of errors.
1. The magnetic field is not humanities shield. No extinctions are associated with magnetic reversals.
2. Where does this 11,800 time frame come from? It is not the mean time between reversals or the length of time estimated for a reversal to complete.

The come some odd comments.

First, molten metals cannot hold a magnetic charge, nor can they create one, no matter how fast they may spin.

If the author had bothered to learn that the magnetic field of the Earth is not due to the spin, nor a magnetic "charge" of the core material then they would not have stated what they did.


Second, even if molten iron could hold a magnetized state, it would take a mass of iron approximately half again as big as the whole of the earth to generate the level of magnetic field we can measure now, let alone at its peak.

Where are the computations to merit this claim? It really doesn't matter since that is not related to the cause of the Earth's field.


The whole 'iron core' theory relies on thinking of the core of the earth as a dynamo. So in following with that, the only way that earth could have a weakening magnetic field would be if the 'iron core' were to be slowing down.

So you start with a complete lack of understanding of the source of the Earth's field. You make some significant blunders in judgment afterward and you come to a really bad conclusion.

There is no evidence that a reversal requires the field to weaken. The field we experience at the surface is just a tiny fraction of the field strength within the Earth. Is it possible to exhibit a weak field at the surface yet have no loss of field strength within the Earth?


Further, what we laughingly refer to as 'mainstream science' has recently determined that the core of the earth is not only spinning faster than the crust, but has recently begun to accelerate its spin rate. So much for the iron core idea.

What the author laughing uses as logic is a complete failure since the spin is not the source of the magnetic field.


Further, if the earth did have an iron core at its center, then this core would cool over the billions of years, and would solidify, thus altering our planet's active state into more of a dead state insofar as the tectonic plates are concerned. So that does not work logically either.

The author has no idea what they are talking about and has no idea why Earth is internally heated.

So far the author tells us quite clearly that
1. They have no idea how the Earth's magnetic field is formed
2. They have no idea why the interior of the Earth is hot
3. They have no understanding of logic

I love this joke.

Patrick's conclusion that the sun will expel vast quantities of south charged, high energy particles is likely correct.

Isn't that funny, "south charged." It's just hilarious.


He uses the analogy of the core, being a giant iron magnet, being pushed over as one can push over one magnet with another. This is likely not going to happen.

For once we agree but for different reasons. The reason I think this can't going to happen is that the Earth's field is not due to the spin of the core. There is simply too much momentum in the core for it to be pushed over.

So here we see that time period again

Nor does it account for the reconstructing of the planet over the 11,800 years between these events to its present, bulged out shape (equatorial bulge, look it up).

Is this story really about ECDs or pole shifts occurring frequently such as every 11,800 years.

The only verified pole shift is from 800Ma. It took 15 million years to complete and moved at the audacious rate of a meter a year. There have been no pole shifts in the last 200My.

I'm done for now. The Clif article is a real stinker. It is bad, bad, bad.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Anyways.... enough of that........

Great posts guys. There seems to be ample evidence that supports the expanding earth theory. The more you research it the more you cant escape the evidence earth grew.

Expanding earth makes perfect sense. Pangaea never sat well with anyone except the ignorant or the people who did not have the mental capacity to expand their knowledge. This is normal. Dont let trolls and ignorance derail you from a great learning experience.

Pangaea theory has many problems. The first problem is that when Pangaea theory was hatched around 1915 there wasn't any mapping of the sea floor like we have today which has led people to scholars and scientist to form the expanding earth theory and a working model from the modern day information. 2nd is they always show north american (Alaska) and Russia separate when in actuality north america and Eurasia are one continent and always has been. ]


Pangaea proposed locations of the continents. It has now been proven wrong.



Pangaea theory was formed before any detailed sea floor mapping took place. Expanding earth theory was formed from those detailed modern maps. See the diff?
edit on 28-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Great posts guys. There seems to be ample evidence that supports the expanding earth theory. The more you research it the more you cant escape the evidence earth grew.

If there is so much evidence then why hasn't anyone posted anything? There have been a number of fraudulent images showing states that never existed in Earth's history such as placing the Hawaiian Island along North America or an ancient Japan with the current shape.


Expanding earth makes perfect sense.

It's a farce. It is a long discarded idea.


Pangaea proposed locations of the continents. It has now been proven wrong.

Really? Show us the evidence. So far all I've seen you post are hoax images of nothing that has ever existed.


Expanding earth theory was formed from those detailed modern maps.

That's a lie.


scholars and scientist to form the expanding earth theory

That's another lie. Where are the peer reviewed journal articles if scientists are working on it? Where? Please show us all of the articles being published if scientists are actually working on this.

The reason no one has shown any peer reviewed journal articles on the expanding Earth is that this is a sad little joke of a theory.

Show me wrong. Point to some real scientific articles and not more uneducated gibberish like that Clif web page.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




It's a farce. ......
Really? ..........
That's a lie.............
That's another lie. expanding Earth is that this is a sad little joke of a theory.
Show me wrong. Point to some real scientific articles and not more uneducated gibberish like that Clif web page.


Not really a informative way to have a debate.

BTW, I dont need to show you anything for it is not important to anyone what YOU think or believe ok? Other people have the mind for it and other people want to discuss the theories.

You have yet to prove me wrong.... remember that.

More pictures to come and vids....
edit on 28-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join