It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They do not interact electromagnetically, but they sure do interact. The neutrino detectors on deep earth has been successful at proving this.
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.
Also you has not made any attempt to prove the Earth is not expanding. Remember,
Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite
Super! that is point for the Earth expand theory!!! You just bring an excellent argument to show Esker is wrong!
Changing levels of water level can explain that. And water level can change a lot. We do not need tectonics for that... do we?
If expanding Earth theory is true, then Earth was originally a water world.
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??
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.
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.
Why would tension cause something to be pulled?
WHy wouldnt it? It seems that you dont have a grasp on simple physics.
Why would an expansion which would spread the crust cause something to be pushed up?
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:
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.
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.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by oshdra
You are purposely misrepresenting number 3.
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 what is said about Pangaea theory.
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.
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.
is bunk just on the fact that the theory was formed without any bathymetric data.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.