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

Originally posted by gringoboy
The sun orbits around that center of our milky way galaxy every 200 million years, with an average speed of about 230 km/s or 800,000 km/h. The Sun has completed about 23 orbits so far.Considering that our sun goes around the galaxy at various times it will come into contact with other magnetic and particulate matter,dark,or plasmiotic,or conventional asteroids within the excretion disc of the galaxy and also bobs up and down above and below the equator of the galaxy every 27,000 years like a wave.
Also ,yet to be discovered and catalogued,gravity varies and gravity waves traversing the galaxy would reek havov with earth ,expanding,warping and ,well completely altering the plates on the geological surface and gamma ray cosmic bursts leaking into our geomagnet.
With all this in mind,nibiru is the least of intrinsic factors to be concerned about at present news.nationalgeographic.com...

Also to consider... IF the core is iron, as the planet bobs past the equator of the galaxy, it would be affected by the galactic magnetic field, causing the core - which is magnetic - to flip.

This may cause the crust to slip, creating the "3 days of night" or "3 days of sun" (depending on where one is...) that shows up in a number of "mythologies..."

Originally posted by Byrd
Heat gets transferred down a short distance into the soil -- but not very far. Go into a cellar even on a hot day and see how much cooler it is down there. There's no energy getting through the soil.

However, our core is molten iron and is still hot, so as you drill down thousands of feet the temperature begins to rise. But that heat comes from within the Earth.

So some of the energies of the Sun hit the surface of the earth, but energy at levels we cannot detect without really really working at it, go to the center of the planet where they are condensed by that plasma environment into matter.

Perhaps it is not heat that is the energy source. Something more electro/gravito/magnetic in nature...?

I suspect that is the source of the energy needed to produce the matter...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

GPS is very accurate, to centimeters is possible. The surface of the Earth, if it were growing in area ("expanding globe, like the balloon) would be very, very obvious, and would be such big news, no way would it be kept a "secret"!!!

It would seem, however, that they must constantly recalibrate:

www.navcen.uscg.gov...

So... If they are constantly recalibrating, is it not possible small increases might be undetected...?

I want to apologize for starting a post about the expanding earth without knowing
you,the op had started one,cause a member brought to my attention that I had done so,
13th Zodiac.

Can anyone debunk this debunking video?


My mind doesn't wrap around this kind of stuff easily, so although the expanding earth theory is very intriguing, I don't know what to believe.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
reply to post by sezsue

 

www.youtube.com... Here you go OP , this should help your case .Lots of visual aids that really help demonstrate .They're not tectonic plates they're stretch marks .Could some body please embed .Thank you .

this link is the to the video I embedded on the previous page of this thread.

And here is the link I posted above yours. Ours are the 10 min version but 13th is only 3 min.

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by Starseed32

 

This video was posted 4 years ago and has been my favorite explanation.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Amaterasu


No....do you understand the geographic coordinate system we use to locate places on the Earth's surface, of Latitude/Longitude?

"Re-calibrating", or any excuse of that sort, is like just trying to stick one's head in the sand, and remain in denial...that the "expanding Earth" concept is a load of poppycock.

I am amazed, in this day and age, that the science of tectonics, plate movement, subduction, vulcanism (etc) isn't better understood....what in the heck do they teach in schools, now? Nothing, it would appear......

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by karmajayne
reply to post by sezsue

 

the below is a quote from the artical the the op provided

So, in the Expando Planet model, the continuous stream of energy from the Sun goes not only to the surface of the planets, but also to the center of the planets, where, given the correct conditions, and the existence of an active plasma core (Mars, as an aside, has none, and is therefore, a 'dead' planet), this energy is transmuted into matter. Note also that plasma is a great form of an 'energetic antenna' and actually (in laboratories) seems to draw energy to it via sympathetic resonance.

Alas, it only proves how little the writer knows.

The core of the planet isn't plasma.

Plasma is an "ionized gas" (en.wikipedia.org...(physics)) and our core certainly isn't made out of gas that's as hot as the surface of the sun. That would melt the Earth.

Heat gets transferred down a short distance into the soil -- but not very far. Go into a cellar even on a hot day and see how much cooler it is down there. There's no energy getting through the soil.

However, our core is molten iron and is still hot, so as you drill down thousands of feet the temperature begins to rise. But that heat comes from within the Earth.

So some of the energies of the Sun hit the surface of the earth, but energy at levels we cannot detect without really really working at it, go to the center of the planet where they are condensed by that plasma environment into matter.

Thanks for your response Byrd, it made me do some research on plasma as well, because I don't really know that much about it.

Of course, I'm sure most of us have heard the *molten iron core of the Earth theory*, although it is assumed to be an iron, nickel, and possibly sulfur combination.

I did find out that there are different types of plasma, and so if the core or part of the core is composed of plasma, it might be a totally different type of plasma from those we are aware of, and it would not have to be at a temperature as hot as that of the sun. If it is in fact absorbed into the center of the earth, it could be that the absorption process changes it somehow.

Many long held, well-regarded theories have been discarded in the past, when additional observation and the resulting knowledge caused a long-standing belief to be overthrown, finally.

Sometimes it takes a long time for another viewpoint to take the place of a standing one because of the time, effort, personalities, and reputations involved. Someone who spent their whole life defending a particular viewpoint is not going to give it up that easily.

By the way, the plasma core theory has been around for at least as long as the 1980's.

"Are the pressure and heat in the interior of the Earth enough to maintain a plasma core? They probably are, and the solid nickel-iron core of the textbooks may be a myth". According to the transmission of seismic waves through the Earth's core and the composition of meteorites, it had previously been thought that the inner core was solid, composed of nickel, iron and probably sulphur. The outer core was assumed to be molten. Owen explains that "the behaviour of waves passing through a plasma core would be similar to that in a solid iron-sulphur core".

Owen points out that a plasma core provides a better explanation for the behaviour of the mantle which surrounds the Earth's outer core. The mantle lies directly beneath the crust and its convection currents are responsible for the creation of new crust and continental movement.

Furthermore, the Earth's magnetic field can be generated as effectively by a plasma core as by one of nickel-iron. Owen emphasised that, "as far as the Earth's interior is concerned, these are only ideas". An understanding of these matters is not yet clear. Such knowledge is necessary to fully understand the how of expulsion and expansion. According to Owen though, the development of the Earth's crust is "however, something that can be tested critically. The field data fit an expanded Earth model; they do not fit a constant modern dimension Earth model".

Here is an interesting link to the above, if you want to check it out. Looks like there's some other interesting stuff to browse through as well, if this is a subject you are interested in examining. I'm looking forward to checking it out, myself.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

No....do you understand the geographic coordinate system we use to locate places on the Earth's surface, of Latitude/Longitude?

"Re-calibrating", or any excuse of that sort, is like just trying to stick one's head in the sand, and remain in denial...that the "expanding Earth" concept is a load of poppycock.

I am amazed, in this day and age, that the science of tectonics, plate movement, subduction, vulcanism (etc) isn't better understood....what in the heck do they teach in schools, now? Nothing, it would appear......

I admit to a vague understanding, but I also know that they keep having to recalibrate the system... I was making a suggestion. No more. It seemed plausible.

Thank you for the correction.

What I don't get about all this end of the world stuff is what do the government have to gain, surely if the world ends their screwed too, If I were the government I'd tell everyone so we could all find a way to stop it, 6 billion heads are better than 1 and all that...

Originally posted by roughycannon
What I don't get about all this end of the world stuff is what do the government have to gain, surely if the world ends their screwed too, If I were the government I'd tell everyone so we could all find a way to stop it, 6 billion heads are better than 1 and all that...

If there were an ELE to happen and you announced it a year before it was due then you would find the world would descend into chaos. People wouldn't feel the need to go to work to pay off their 30+ year mortgage, would be more inclined to spend your last days with friends and family. So the governments would be best keeping it quiet just to ensure that we have a world worth living in for the last days.

reply to post by sezsue


Thanks for this. The article is basically a mix of the Expanding Earth theory and The Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology and for me is just exactly what is happening in our world. I don't go with the catastrophe part at the end but I suppose there has to be an element of doom.

I shall take a better look at this tonight and I have only skimmed it, and I will provide loads of links to the two theories if no one else has done so by then.

In the meantime this page has various videos on plasma cosmology and links to other sites, in particular a good Australian one.

This post on ATS has several links to other ATS topics on the Electric Universe.

During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, it was found that the global excess in radius was 18 mm/year – i.e. they found that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend that the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now
reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

Source: PDF - Expanding Earth. Maxwell.
That item is on page 5

There are problems with the expanding earth and there are problems with plate tectonics, but I honestly believe that somewhere in between all of the theories lies an answer.

Maybe the earth has a layer of magic snakes!


Doesn't lava expand in volume?

Half Past Human is a debatable source of information. Is this Cliff's own theory? I can find nothing about it anywhere reputable.
Having said that, there are plausable aspects to the theory. Plate tectonics theories need to be scrutinized. They just don't add up. And before you have a go at me for saying that, remember the earth was once flat.
It's good to see an interest in alternate theories. I enjoyed reading it and will probably be contemplating it for a few days. Thank you OP.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The earth is not a balloon. You are assuming that the internal pressure is equal and the surface is exactly the same around the entire planet.
The crust has weaknesses, and gases and fluids which create changes in internal pressures at different points.

reply to post by sezsue

He says he thinks the earth may have been smaller in the past, which would help explain why the dinosaurs could grow so big and still be able to survive. He said gravity would not have been as strong on a smaller planet, and that could also explain how the ancients were able to build such big monuments.

If the earth was "smaller" and it's mass less in the past, the orbit would be different and we probably would have been flung out into space by now. It's one of those amazing "miracles" that all the factors lined up to allow us to stay right in the green zone.

We can build most of those ancient monuments now, and go beyond. I think he should give more credit to the feats of engineering these primitive people pulled off, instead of saying the earth was some how smaller.

If it's expanding, we should be able to see that in sedimentary layers.

He also says tectonic plates don't explain everything. Sure they do there's plenty of science behind that as well.

reply to post by Mayura

Well, I'm familiar with the Expanding Earth theory... which is fact. There's many things going on here. We are at the end of a Galactic cycle and that means something. If I told you this planet is about to elevate to a higher dimension and become a star in the process, you probably wouldn't believe me

Wow, you are familiar with the Expanding Earth theory, or are you familiar with Expanding Earth Fact? Because you're the only one brave enough to come out and call a THEORY fact with absolutely nothing to back it up as a fact, it's a theory that needs investigation.

galactic cycle? How about you define that? Is this cycle related to the rotation of our galaxy due to the supermassive black hole at the center? Is it related somehow to the age of the galaxy?

How, exactly, is the planet going to elevate to a higher dimension? do you understand what dimensions are? We live in a 3 dimensional world as objects have height, length, and depth. Arguably it's 4 dimensions as time could also be looked at as a dimension. M theory dictates that there are extra dimensions all over, but these aren't alternate realities. I think you might have dimension and universe mixed up, don't worry it happens a lot when talking about made up galactic cycles and dimensional elevation.

And now to your last point. Do you even know what a star is my friend? honestly? A star is essentially a ball of plasma that ignited and started a fusion reaction which is self sustaining for millions of years until the star burns off more of it's fuel and creates an unbalance which causes the star to nova (different depending on the type of star)

A planet, in no way shape or form, could become a star. It's impossible. Sure we could torch the planet, but it's not a star, it's a mass of rock with molten iron at the core, it simply can't fuel the nuclear process of a star.

A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity.......

A star begins as a collapsing cloud of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. Once the stellar core is sufficiently dense, some of the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.[1] The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, those stars having at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun[2] expand to become a red giant, in some cases fusing heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. The star then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment, where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements.[3]

What is a star?

Earth's outer surface is divided into several rigid segments, or tectonic plates, that migrate across the surface over periods of many millions of years. About 71% of the surface is covered with salt water oceans, the remainder consisting of continents and islands which together have many lakes and other sources of water contributing to the hydrosphere. Liquid water, necessary for all known life, is not known to exist in equilibrium on any other planet's surface.[note 7] Earth's poles are mostly covered with solid ice (Antarctic ice sheet) or sea ice (Arctic ice cap). The planet's interior remains active, with a thick layer of relatively solid mantle, a liquid outer core that generates a magnetic field, and a solid iron inner core.

Earth

As you can see if you took the time to read, the Earth simply does not contain the correct fuel to convert it to a star. Not even Jupiter, a gas giant, can do it. Sorry. You'll have to notify the galactic federation for me, they blocked my from their spacemail server
sigh

reply to post by weedwhacker

"solar companion"?? Oh, you mean the Sun? No.....the Sun's gravitational forces aren't that strong, nor that precise. It influences our entire planetary motion on orbit, of course....but that is just due to the warping of space time in general. Mercury? Possibly near enough to be influenced as you suggest. In fact, the Moon exerts far, far more gravitational effects, in that minor way, even though far less massive than the Sun...it is of course much nearer. (Hence, the tides).

Yeah I agree the suns gravity does`nt have any affect on anything?

The basic reason why the planets revolve around, or orbit the sun (rotate actually is used to describe their spin, for example, the Earth completes one rotation about its axis every 24 hours, but it completes one revolution around the Sun every 365 days), is that the gravity of the Sun keeps them in their orbits. Just as the Moon orbits the Earth because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the Earth orbits the Sun because of the pull of the Sun's gravity.

Wonder,how does a comet travel away from the sun and come back 76 years later...mmm,?
The moons mass has that affect on the tides as it pulls away the puckering of Earths gravity.. interesting, knowledge.Finally gravity varies in waves NASA[

reply to post by Amaterasu


This could be true if the electric universe is valid,I am looking into this,very interesting.Members input is quite astonishing and pole flips of sun,earth ,probably configures somewhere in this electric universe model.I will follow member Putermans take on it,great links and info.
There is a dance between gravity and the electric(electromagnetic)universe,and since the expansion of the universe is filled with electromagnetic energy ,expanding lightly (little combined mass)outwardly but stronger and gravity corkscrews inwardly because of mass(weighs more than electromagnetic energy but weaker),there is obviously a equalibrium process at work and gravity varies(seesaw/tipping Scales.)in a feedback loop of 8.
In a sense it becomes hard to predict earthquakes but there are markers,like closest point in the year to the sun,and the moons position and perturberance.
I am now officially on the fence with expanding earth after rewatching the animation,ALASKA would have enormous mountain ranges,that pins a anomaly in the process,or animation.I think Puterman is correct its somewhere inbetween,expansion,contraction,like breathing..earth breaths

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Heh...
www.youtube.com...