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

page: 28
85
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



That is a completely false statement. Imagine blowing a balloon or putting a sealed bag in the microwave. It will expand with no meteors hitting it. Many things are at play. The earth core could be expanding. There is thermal expansion, neutrinos, and other unknown forces acting on the earth.

Thermal expansion as we've already discussed is a limited process. Rock has a small coefficient of expansion.

The balloon analogy is just nonsense. You are injecting matter into the balloon. You are increasing the volume with a gas. It's not a scalable process.




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



These time frames fit perfect with the expanding earth theory and of coarse the "poles" shift during these events (depending on your definition). Maybe the poles dont shift but the continents do.

What time frames fit? There are no time frames in my post.

That's right continents do shift because they are on plates that move.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by oshdra
 



As far as mainstream science is concerned, one of this four possibilities must solve dinosaur paradox. Please, notice that Earth expand theory is option number 3.
Esker discard options 1 to 3 with different arguments. My point being option 3 is so legit that even mainstream science take it into account.

You are purposely misrepresenting number 3. The expanding Earth claim and number 3 are not the same. Item 3 is about accretion from space involving an influx of extraterrestrial material. That would destroy the Earth if there was a 9x increase in the mass as supposed by adherents of the theory. And it is not legit because someone lists a far fetched notion. And no the list of 4 is not the only possibilities. And no this is not peer reviewed material. In fact, the author has not published any of this material in a peer reviewed setting. A search of the internet shows only his name and ideas attached to this claim of a paradox. I was purposely looking for scientists that also supported his claim.

Here are more comments on size by experts in a non peer-reviewed setting.
Dinosaurs size paradox
[url=http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/5041973589]Dinosaur paradox?


In the latter link we learn that Esker has a Masters degree. His claims don't seem to hold water.

As much as Mr. Esker would like there to be a controversy here, there simply isn't one. Dinosaurs were more than able to support their own weight, and pterosaurs were more than able to fly, based on analysis of actual bones and their layout by actual scientists from many different disciplines.


So it seems that Esker's claims may be nonsense. I do know that if the ambient pressure exceeds about 10atm that the oxygen will burn lung tissue. Check with anyone that scuba dives.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by oshdra
 



No? There are phenomena that may be explained by this theory:
-Cracks and sink holes appearing around the world
-The difference in the age of the seafloor around the world
-The dinosaur paradox
-The fact pacific coasts fix between them the same way the Atlantic costs do.

Cracks appearing around the world? Tell us about these cracks. Do you mean spreading ridges?
Sink holes are due to loss of mass due to dissolving of rock. Laughable to suggest they are anything else.
Seafloor age difference does not show expansion.
The dinosaur paradox is a claim by one person. There is no paradox.
The Pacific coast fits what? Are you using the fantasy image by another poster? That's funny.


They do not interact electromagnetically, but they sure do interact. The neutrino detectors on deep earth has been successful at proving this.

Exactly right. There are interactions. Is it one in a trillion passing through the detector that is detected? Or what?
Neurtrino detector

Since the neutrino can pass through the entire Earth without interaction, it takes specialized techniques to detect one.


The mean free path of a neutrino in water would be on the order of 10x the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

The latter line means that if there was a ball of water centered around the Sun and extended all of the way out to Saturn, only half of the neutrinos would interact with the water. The rest would pass through without interacting with the water. That's the mean right, the middle point?


Also you has not made any attempt to prove the Earth is not expanding. Remember,
Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite

Just because the case for an expanding Earth has been a dismal failure does not mean that anyone has to show that the Earth is not expanding. It is the burden of the supporters to show evidence.


Super! that is point for the Earth expand theory!!! You just bring an excellent argument to show Esker is wrong!

We've already established that Esker was wrong in his claim of a paradox.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by oshdra
 



Changing levels of water level can explain that. And water level can change a lot. We do not need tectonics for that... do we?

ow you are getting into the problem that your model doe snot work and you need to muck around with the model to make things work. This is reminiscent of the crystal spheres in crystal spheres that was needed to explain retrograde orbits.


If expanding Earth theory is true, then Earth was originally a water world.

This is not going to work if there was land already at the time of Pangaea or even back to Devonian times before Pangaea existed. A big problem for a water planet is having shallow zones where life can settle to the bottom and thrive in a sunlit zone. Stromatolites appear to go back 3.4By. See the following and the given references.
Stromatolite


There was a time when The Everest was sea floor. Maybe the Everest raised above water because of India, or maybe the water went down because expansion (plus going up because crust tension). How are going to tell the difference??

Why would tension cause something to be pulled? Why would an expansion which would spread the crust cause something to be pushed up? It wouldn't. Orogenic zones are not compatible with the expanding Earth claim.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Stereo... You have yet to offer any evidence to counter the theories presented here in this thread. Your word is junk. It is quite annoying knowing you reply here because they are always without substance and meaningless. We understand you hate this thread.

What theory do you subscribe to Stereologist?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

ow you are getting into the problem that your model doe snot work and you need to muck around with the model to make things work.


Wrong again. You are confused. That is what is said about Pangaea theory.


This is not going to work if there was land already at the time of Pangaea or even back to Devonian times before Pangaea existed.


Whats not going to work. Do you have any sources to your claims or are you just a opinionated armchair pseudo-geologist?



Why would tension cause something to be pulled?

Are you serious with this claim? Your not making any sense. When you pull on somthing you create tension.


Why would an expansion which would spread the crust cause something to be pushed up?
WHy wouldnt it? It seems that you dont have a grasp on simple physics.

edit on 2-4-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Pangaea theory is bunk just on the fact that the theory was formed without any bathymetric data. In other words stereo... there was no under water see floor maps available during the time of the hypothesis of Pangaea.


With the latest bathymetry information expanding earth theory was formed. The first bathymetric maps were available after 1940's when Pangaea hypotheses if from 1910'ish





Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience is what i am being told.
edit on 2-4-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


You keep claiming that expanding Earth theory can not explain finding evidence of oceans on what is now land, but you never explain why.

It is pretty obvious, that on a smaller Earth, oceans would cover areas that are now land. The changing mantle under the crust due to shaping and expanding of the outer core and inner mantle, would certainly explain how things have been stirred over millions of years. The expanding Earth theory explains all of this even better than simple plate tectonics.

Read this link that has been posted all the time, they cover all of this.

www.expanding-earth.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You have it right with that last line. Clearly you have proven you know what you are talking about.

One of the big problem mainstream academics have with the issue, is that it opens yet another fissure in Einstein's quantum physics theories, that these mainstream academics cling to like priests of a dying religion.

It is a conspiracy theory in itself how Einstein has been crowned greatest genius of all time, when his best work had already been developed by others.

Here is another thread which discusses evidence that electron concentration in our ionosphere may be a good indicator of Earthquakes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by gringoboy
 




Surely you are not suggestung the moon is pulling the water tides and earth away from the sun,the moon does have less mass you know ,what are you implying because it seems like nonsense the moon can`t pull the earth from the sun,this is due to my earlier posts the expanding medium of the universe.

I'd say you are very confused about tides and tidal interactions. If you don't understand the concepts then you probably want to take a basic course in the subject. You could probably sit in on an intro oceanography course at a nearby college. In the meantime try this link:
Tidal acceleration
en.wikipedia.org...


and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. the Earth). The "acceleration" is usually negative, as it causes a gradual slowing and recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking of first the smaller, and later the larger body. The Earth-Moon system is the best studied case.

Okayz so the moon and earth dance slows the rotation...mm then why is the earth speeding up,can you answer that,don`t duck and dive
www.presstv.ir...
.

Research scientist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said Japan's quake should have shifted the position of the Earth's figure axis (the axis about which its mass is balanced) by about 16cm (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. According to NASA, the tremor also shortened the length of a day caused by the earthquake's redistribution of Earth's mass by 1.8 microseconds.

edit on 2-4-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by oshdra
 


You are purposely misrepresenting number 3.


No, I am not. The idea is "gravity variation". You are ASSUMING there is only one way for a planet to gain mass.

You are quite into things like "have a Phd", "Peer review", etc. I agree those things are necessary, but by themselves do not prove anything in particular. To say something is right because a Phd said it is an ad hominen falacy.

You do not seem interested in finding the truth, I am still waiting for answers to the more substantial points



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Stereo... You have yet to offer any evidence to counter the theories presented here in this thread. Your word is junk. It is quite annoying knowing you reply here because they are always without substance and meaningless. We understand you hate this thread.

What theory do you subscribe to Stereologist?

That is not the issue. The issue is that so far all you've done is created some fantasy images without regard to geology and offered this as some kind of evidence. That amounts to perpetrating a hoax - not allowed on ATS.

The problem remains that only hoaxes such as fantasy images of an Earth that never was and Esker's web site and Clif's web site are being used. Each of these are not based on facts.

No evidence that the Earth is expanding is being offered.

It is my contention that people are aware that there is no evidence and are now resorting to whining that I should prove a universal negative.

Sorry it the burden of the person making the claim to support their claim and that has been a total failure.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



That is what is said about Pangaea theory.

The existence of several supercontinents has been well established using a wide range of data.


Whats not going to work. Do you have any sources to your claims or are you just a opinionated armchair pseudo-geologist? /quote]
Where is your evidence of anything whatsoever to support the expando doohicky? So far all we've seen is your efforts to perpetrate hoax with fake images of a world that never was.


WHy wouldnt it? It seems that you dont have a grasp on simple physics. /quote]
Actually I do. It seems you have no idea how to explain orogenic phenomena with an expando doohicky.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Pangaea theory is bunk just on the fact that the theory was formed without any bathymetric data. In other words stereo... there was no under water see floor maps available during the time of the hypothesis of Pangaea. /quote]
Just because there was a suggestion of a supercontinent before the oceans were mapped does not affect the modern understanding of the supercontinents. This suggestion of your is the typical ruse of someone with a failed agenda that needs to make straw man arguments.

Besides, you do not need bathymetric information other than the continental shelf information which was available to Wegener. You claim is a failure on 2 counts.


With the latest bathymetry information expanding earth theory was formed. The first bathymetric maps were available after 1940's when Pangaea hypotheses if from 1910'ish

Again you are stunningly wrong. The first expanding earth ideas go back to Darwin in the 1830s and

In 1889 and 1909 Roberto Mantovani published a hypothesis of earth expansion and continental drift.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth]Expanding Earth

According to your logic then expanding earth

is bunk just on the fact that the theory was formed without any bathymetric data.


Failure!



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So you provide a link to place that states "THE EARTH IS GROWING AND EXPANDING RAPIDLY" and claims that this is due to "EXTERNAL ACCRETION" and "INTERNAL CORE EXPANSION".

That's so laughable!

Accretion might have added a few centimeters at best over billions of years. We can see the amount of accretion by examining the Moon's surface.

The internal core expansion is claimed by "BY GRAVITATIONALLY INDUCED HEATING". Oh brother! So the matter compresses. Potential energy is converted to heat. The material expands and thus cools and contracts. It reaches a state of equilibrium and therefore the system becomes static.

Let's look at one of the statements made by Lawrence.

The daily influx of meteorites and meteor dust is well known to scientists, but the total volume of mass daily added to Earth's surface is difficult to estimate and is not well documented. Estimates of total volume published by NASA vary widely (or wildly?) just for dust alone, ranging from as little as 1,000 tons/day (300,000 metric tons/yr, Dubin and McCracken, 1962) to 55,000 tons/day (20,000,000 tons/yr, Fiocco and Colombo, 1964). However, a more recent estimate puts the accreting dust volume at approximately 78,000 tons/yr, or 214 tons/day.

Accretion of mass
Notice that he chooses to pick 2 studies in the early 1960s and does not name the more recent study? This is because this Lawrence whack job wants to confuse those easily confused. Did anyone bother to look up these studies or look at how these studies were done?

After that Lawrence goes on to skip over the math but just goes on to claim that there must be a lot of incoming material. He doesn't even reference the AMS to tell you that there are an estimated several thousand fireballs a day! He does mention the following:

The potential volume of accreted extraterrestrial material can be imagined from the estimates of Terentjeva that just the ten major meteor streams (the largest being the Quadrantids, Perseids, Orionids and Geminids) produce from 10-100 meteor impacts per hour for several days every year.

So what! How many pieces the size of sand grains does it take to make an appreciably accretion? A lot more than Lawrence claims.

It has been estimated that the influx of material would have to be 60 billion tons of material each year just to get the additional mass required by Lawrence. You those few meteors reported by Lawrence are going to add up to 60 billion tons over the course of a year?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You have it right with that last line. Clearly you have proven you know what you are talking about.

So why does ShadowHerder make the mistake of supporting the expando doohicky when it was made before any bathymetric maps were available?
Why does ShadowHerder use hoax images to support the failed wild tale of an expanding Earth?


One of the big problem mainstream academics have with the issue, is that it opens yet another fissure in Einstein's quantum physics theories, that these mainstream academics cling to like priests of a dying religion.

Another false claim. I think you better go look at Einstein and quantum physics again. You are quite confused on the issue. You're making stuff up - again!


It is a conspiracy theory in itself how Einstein has been crowned greatest genius of all time, when his best work had already been developed by others.

Please explain to us where this confusion comes from.


Here is another thread which discusses evidence that electron concentration in our ionosphere may be a good indicator of Earthquakes.

What does that have to do with the expando doohicky? Nothing. Besides, that claim was debunked.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



Okayz so the moon and earth dance slows the rotation...mm then why is the earth speeding up,can you answer that,don`t duck and dive

There are many issues at play here. One is tidal interactions. Another is mass distribution. In the case of the Japanese quake and the Chile quake and lots of other quakes it is well known that the mass moves causing a change in rotation because angular momentum is conserved. A common example of this is the spinning skater that speeds up when they draw their arms towards their bodies.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by oshdra
 



You are quite into things like "have a Phd", "Peer review", etc. I agree those things are necessary, but by themselves do not prove anything in particular. To say something is right because a Phd said it is an ad hominen falacy.

Agreed. A degree does not mean it is so. On the other hand, the material claimed has not gone through the checks and balances of academic review. This is the process of making sure that someone is not publishing baloney just because they have a degree or previously did something noteworthy.

The internet allows someone to publish an idea, regardless of the topic, without any checks on the subject matter. The dinosaur claims do not address the issues of oxygen toxicity or the stability of a dense atmosphere or even the assumptions made about scalability.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Originally posted by stereologist There are many issues at play here. One is tidal interactions. Another is mass distribution. In the case of the Japanese quake and the Chile quake and lots of other quakes it is well known that the mass moves causing a change in rotation because angular momentum is conserved. A common example of this is the spinning skater that speeds up when they draw their arms towards their bodies.


Why do you keep repeating that the earth has got arms,I and probably everybody else on the planet can`t see any arms bobbing out and in,and if that is your opinion then that then means you are agreeing that the moon causes earthquakes as thats the only arm I or anyone else can see interacting with tidal movements of water,nevermind the planet !`
Thankyou for that admission
Peace gringo
edit on 3-4-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)





 
85
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join