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

page: 29
85
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Finally!!!

An acknowledgement that "expanding earth" is all imaginary!!


They just don't seem to be able to use their own imagination to see new things.


IF people are content in spreading such nonsense, and posing as a "fact" (or, laughably even calling it a "theory", when it most assuredly is NOT....doesn't even come close to qualifying that status, it is such utter bunk).

IF people are happier to just "imagine" such balderdash.....but then they want others to take them "seriously"? Can't you see the damage this does, to intelligence and IQ levels everywhere? Spreading such false, misleading disinformation?


So sad.........


Yes. It is.

Fantasies and "speculations" should be clearly labelled as such....and assessed accordingly. AND, when solid, solid evidence is presented that refutes the very premise of those fantastical assertions, or 'claims'? What good does it do, for anyone, to continue?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


What is laughable is that your responses are getting even more jumbled, and irrelevant. Once again you fail to provide any links to back up your claims.

Apparently in your school boy view of things, all accretion must come from fireballs, and that there is no accumulation of matter from space that does not look like a wishing star.

Also, apparently, the amount of accretion is constant, and because scientist have yet to come up with an accurate estimate of how much matter our planet is currently gaining from space, undoubtedly, this weak estimate is constant, and our planet has never accreted more or less matter from space than it is currently gaining.

Oh yeah, and of course our planet has reached an equilibrium, and there is no evidence whatsoever, that our planet continues to move things around. Just ask Japan, planet Earth is at a beautiful equilibrium.

You do such a good job of posting absolute nonsense.

There is nothing of substance I can argue against.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
mate really good evidence but there's just 1 fact i wanna critique:

the 'new sea' that will separate africa from the arabian peninsula has been around for millions of years, it's a rift valley.. sooner of later it will fill with water but it's growing rather slowly. As for the rest of your theory i think it's great, perhaps as the earth expands it will cause the plates to slide around a little more to compensate for the spaces left



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



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 /quote]
I'm not really sorry to say that is the weirdest and most nonsensical response I have ever received at ATS.
Thanks for making my day.

It's obvious that this was an attempt at a joke. Unfortunately it didn't work out.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



What is laughable is that your responses are getting even more jumbled, and irrelevant. Once again you fail to provide any links to back up your claims.

Once again it is the burden of the claimant to justify their claims, not me who is poking holes int his fantasy.

After as accretion is concerned are you disputing that the accretion would have to be of the order of billions of tons of material a year? If not, what is your dispute. All you are doing is scoffing and making vague scoffs at that.


Apparently in your school boy view of things, all accretion must come from fireballs, and that there is no accumulation of matter from space that does not look like a wishing star.

Despite your insipid need to make personal attacks it is you that seem to lack the ability to read. I never stated that it was only fireballs, only that the number of fireballs was far greater than the meteor influx the expando doohickey author claimed. Was that so difficult to understand?


Also, apparently, the amount of accretion is constant, and because scientist have yet to come up with an accurate estimate of how much matter our planet is currently gaining from space, undoubtedly, this weak estimate is constant, and our planet has never accreted more or less matter from space than it is currently gaining.

Accretion is not linear although it may appear that a linear estimate is good since the accretion is on "tail" of the graph.


Oh yeah, and of course our planet has reached an equilibrium, and there is no evidence whatsoever, that our planet continues to move things around. Just ask Japan, planet Earth is at a beautiful equilibrium.

Would you be so kind as to explain this rambling paragraph. It certainly seems to be way off mark when it comes to the reality of Earth processes today.


You do such a good job of posting absolute nonsense.
There is nothing of substance I can argue against.

Thanks for showing your true colors, which is that you know your position is so ridiculous that you dare not say anything lest you taste more shoe leather.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 



mate really good evidence but there's just 1 fact i wanna critique:

the 'new sea' that will separate africa from the arabian peninsula has been around for millions of years, it's a rift valley.. sooner of later it will fill with water but it's growing rather slowly. As for the rest of your theory i think it's great, perhaps as the earth expands it will cause the plates to slide around a little more to compensate for the spaces left


Since no one else seems to be able to put forth the evidence for this expando claim, could you please tell us what the evidence is?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

From the Hubble space based telescope, photographic evidence of a expanding universe, did I say "EXPANDING"?

Since it appears that we are witnessing the true nature of the universe first hand with this telescope, it would stand to reason that all natural laws must be based on scientific observations. The observation is that the universe is "EXPANDING". Did I say expanding?

In the following photos one can see no subduction of the universe, only expansion.


This Hubble photo actually looks like a planet EXPANDING in its final blows as a planet. It even appears you can see the planet seed, or central sun for you hollow earthers. That would be the little light, or star in the middle. It also could very well be in its infancy being born.



This set of 3 show the outward, that is, "EXPANSION", movement of this mass.







So it appears that EXPANSION plays a very large part in the movement of galactic bodies, and their is nothing to suggest these natural laws do not apply to our very own solar system, or planet.

These images were taken from the ATS thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
And the video from that thread





edit on 3-4-2011 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 



In the following photos one can see no subduction of the universe, only expansion.

What are you talking about? It is meaningless to connect tectonic processes with the universe in general. Expansion of the universe differs from the expando doohicky in many important ways including the fact that an expanding universe does not mean the creation of new mass.


This Hubble photo actually looks like a planet EXPANDING in its final blows as a planet.

Are you into dadaism? What gives here?

The images are of an explosion. So what?


So it appears that EXPANSION plays a very large part in the movement of galactic bodies, and their is nothing to suggest these natural laws do not apply to our very own solar system, or planet.

That's not true is it? Here you have purposely taken a biased sample of images showing explosions and not want to equate this biased sample with movement of objects. There is nothing to suggest that such explosions play any role with our Sun.

Please realize that posting dadaist absurdisms is just like posting off topic comments.
edit on 3-4-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Are you into dadaism? What gives here?
Off topic. You may message me the question.

The only difference between a explosion, and expansion, is the passage of time. Expansion happens rather slowly and an explosion happens rather quickly. Both are at play in our universe, our reality. Both go in the same direction, that being out from the center.


So it appears that EXPANSION plays a very large part in the movement of galactic bodies, and their is nothing to suggest these natural laws do not apply to our very own solar system, or planet.


That's not true is it?
Yes, it does appear to be true.

edit on 3-4-2011 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 



The only difference between a explosion, and expansion, is the passage of time.

Quite wrong. I could see this in the strangeness of the post you made.

An explosion is:

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

Explosion

Expansion does not require a release of energy. Expansion may be or may not be rapid. Expansion may not require the release of gases.

In the images you showed you can see a central star surrounded by an envelope of gas. That is an explosion. Heating an object leads to expansion (things like polonium are an exception).

Explosions differ from expansions in many ways. To suggest that a star going nova makes an expanding Earth claim feasible is rather illogical.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Expansion does not require a release of energy. Expansion may be or may not be rapid. Expansion may not require the release of gases.
Oh really? So what you are saying is that anything could be in the process of expanding, and we might not be aware of it? Where did the ignore button go?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 



Oh really? So what you are saying is that anything could be in the process of expanding, and we might not be aware of it? Where did the ignore button go? /quote]
Hardly anything you are posting is making any sense at all.
I have not said anything like this at all.

Do you think making absurd posting is cute or are you trying to win the hearts of the expando doohicky club?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
However, in an apparent community-wide failure to grasp the epitome of the situation, this fact has
gone almost unnoticed by all but a few. Unless we believe in a rapidly expanding Earth, we must find some means other than the plate-tectonic hypothesis of explaining the geometry.

The concept of fracture zone/megatrend intersections is anathema to both the plate-tectonic and the Earth expansion hypotheses to warrant a complete overhaul of the basic premises of these hypotheses. However, we need not stop there after delving so far into the inner workings of such outdated ideas, ideas which have not evolved since their inception. That alone is a scientific disgrace. It is not the only one
www.tags-21.info...

Very ineresting read.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The plate-tectonic hypothesis also had a shaky foundation; it was a sand castle. By 1966 not enough of the ocean floor had been sampled to derive any meaningful explanation about how the ocean floor formed, and that constituted about 70% of Earth's surface.www.tags-21.info...
edit on 4-4-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You've finally found a peer reviewed journal which mentions the idea of a rapidly expanding Earth. The author is clearly equivocal on the idea. What is even more interesting is the lack of a clear conclusion. It is not clear if the paper is making a push for a particular concept such as surge tectonics.

The best part of the paper is that it shows that ideas well outside of the bounds of the established ideas are publishable.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


There is much more to the seafloor than obtaining a physical map. There are paleomagnetic studies and sediment studies and seismic studies.



new topics
 
85
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join