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

page: 31
85
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

There certainly is a variation on your opinion as in previous posts throughout this thread,the moon has no affect,and now it does,very interesting,like the semantics of the day !




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



There certainly is a variation on your opinion as in previous posts throughout this thread,the moon has no affect,and now it does,very interesting,like the semantics of the day !

Misrepresenting what I have posted shows everyone how poor your position actually is - it has no substance which is what has been shown again and again and again and again ...



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The moon does have a gravitational pull on the crust.

What has been posted in this thread by some posters is that the Moon drives the plates or some other balderdash.

The claim has been that the pressure of the oceans is significant in affecting the crust, Another balderdash claim.


The Moon does have an affect. The affect is very small. It is small and not persistent just as tides in the ocean are not persistent. As the position of the Moon relative to the oceans or land changes so does the tidal affect.


So this is what I stated. The Moon has no persistent effect on the crust. The effects are small.

The expando earth baloney claim is still baloney with NO evidence to support it. In fact, all of the evidence is against such a ridiculous claim.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Obviously you think you know more than the U.S. Navy.

My advice to you, is never go scuba diving.

I guess you are saying that the specialized steel used to make up the hull of a ship is not used because of the enormous pressure deep under the ocean?



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Obviously you think you know more than the U.S. Navy.

My advice to you, is never go scuba diving.

I guess you are saying that the specialized steel used to make up the hull of a ship is not used because of the enormous pressure deep under the ocean?

Obviously this is another bad attempt to misrepresent what I stated. It is possible that you did not understand what I wrote, but that is unlikely.

My advice to you is to avoid make foolish attempts at misrepresenting.

PS I do scuba dive.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Interesting youtube video on the expando earth theory.
edit on 3-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


What makes this video so interesting. I have a long standing tradition not to bother looking at videos especially ones that are just posted. Is there anything of particular interest int his video? Is there any actual evidence?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


That video was posted on the very first page of this thread and yes has been seen alot here and elsewhere over the internet. Interesting yes, solid proof, not that I saw



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I was posing a video having to do with the same subject matter of the thread. Those that find the theory interesting will I am sure click on the video and watch the presentation. If you do not know the subject matter at hand then it is up to you to take the time out to understand if that is so your wish. What might be interesting to me might not be for you.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


Oops, you are right I must have missed it the first time around. Let me edit and add a different video that on the same subject.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


In other words there is nothing particularly important in the video. Or maybe nothing stood out as anything of importance.

The reason I don't watch videos is that they contain 1 minute of reading material splashed across 10 minutes of video. There is usually little or no content, just visual fluff.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I hear you, but the video (at least the original one) had nice computer animation showing possibly how it would have happened (expansion/growth). My question is where did all the water come from, and how does the earth add more matter to it's self? I'm not an expert in the field or anything, actually just recently came across the theory myself and as interesting as it may seem to consider (for me at least) there are still questions that I have.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


The expanding Earth theory is not new. It is an old idea that is being recycled. It was suggested a long time ago because of the observation that the edges of the continents seemed to fit together. The suggestion of an expanding Earth was a means of separating the once connected continents. The theory really falls apart on a number of grounds including no means of creating more matter as you point out. The theory has been shown to be wrong decades and decades ago.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I just came across this thread and will try to catch up tomorrow, but this sounds like it fits in with the plasma theory of cosmology that I've heard about, aka "electric universe". I also recall a "hydroplate theory" that is proposed as another alternative to plate tectonics. Some quick links:

hydroplate: www.cbn.com...
elec. universe, plasma:
www.holoscience.com...
www.commonsensescience.org...
www.cosmicfingerprints.com...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Hydroplate theory was proposed in support of a biblical interpretation of geology. That proposal is a massive failure. It does not reflect the world we see around us. It clashes head on with expanding Earth.

The CBN site is overtly religious.
As we can see from the CSS link, it is a religious link.
The cosmic fingerprints link is also religious in nature.

These sites pretend to be scientific. They are not at all.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is "religious" dogma in all the mainstream science sites as well, because macroevolution is an unfalsifiable theory. So I don't see that objection as valid. I also don't know of anything in the book on the hydroplate theory that clashes with empirical, testable, verifiable, observable science, but only with the tectonic plate theory.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



There is "religious" dogma in all the mainstream science sites as well, because macroevolution is an unfalsifiable theory.

That's the line put out by creationists. Religion and science are very different. The dogma of science is the ability to accept new ideas. The dogma of religion is to NOT accept new ideas. Macroevolution is a false title assigned by creationists. It is not a part of true science.


I also don't know of anything in the book on the hydroplate theory that clashes with empirical, testable, verifiable, observable science, but only with the tectonic plate theory.

Well let's list a few items that have been overlooked.
1. The water would have been released in a phreatic explosion destroying the surface - see Krakatoa
2. Where is the evidence of the water release? Nothing exists just like the failed global flood tale.
3. How was the water contained within the Earth?
4. No evidence for a global flood
5. There is no means of forming a trapped water Earth

Even the creationists think Brown is wrong
Creation Science Rebuttals
Center for Scientific Creationism
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model


Are there problems with hydroplate? Yes, insurmountable problems shown by the evidence of the world as we see it.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologistThat's the line put out by creationists. Religion and science are very different. The dogma of science is the ability to accept new ideas. The dogma of religion is to NOT accept new ideas. Macroevolution is a false title assigned by creationists. It is not a part of true science.

True science is observation and experimentation, and any theory purporting to be scientific must be falsifiable. I'm not aware of anyone having proposed any way to falsify macroevolution. Instead, every time some discovery is made that should have been accepted as falsification has been brushed aside as a mere "adjustment"; that is, they keep moving the goalposts. So the charge of "dogma" lies as surely at the feet of evolutionism as any other faith-based system; its zealots have unshakable faith that no discovery will ever refute it, hence it is unfalsifiable.

Macroevolution is merely a "handle" on the teaching also known as "molecules to man". It means the belief that life evolved from nonlife, whether on this planet or some other, regardless of how far back the line is pushed. It is evolutionists who invented the theory, not creationists.


I also don't know of anything in the book on the hydroplate theory that clashes with empirical, testable, verifiable, observable science, but only with the tectonic plate theory.
Well let's list a few items that have been overlooked.
1. The water would have been released in a phreatic explosion destroying the surface - see Krakatoa
2. Where is the evidence of the water release? Nothing exists just like the failed global flood tale.
3. How was the water contained within the Earth?
4. No evidence for a global flood
5. There is no means of forming a trapped water Earth

This is a good example proving my point: you deny a global flood (though some scientists propose there was once water covering all of Mars) and deny the evidence of it: the fossil record. Both sides have the same evidence but different theories; yet only one side fears and even goes to law to silence the other.

But I'm not in this thread to go another round on the evo debate; I'm tired of that after many years. I'm here because the sacred cow theory of plate tectonics is finally being seriously challenged and am intrigued by the ideas. Science, true science, does not fear any such questioning, is falsifiable, and doesn't appeal to popularity.
edit on 4-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: typos
edit on 4-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: fix quote nesting



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The expanding earth theory has compelling explanatory power on any no of fronts, too much to be ignored in my opinion.

The one serious drawback is where the extra matter comes from - and it certainly isn't coming from emissions from the sun - most likely explanation I can think of is the periodic condensing of the lower astral straight into the physical.

This is all tied in with the cycles of the ages that the ancient cultures all report - gold, silver, bronze etc.

But this is obviously so far beyond the purview of current science that they will never pick upon it.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



True science is observation and experimentation, and any theory purporting to be scientific must be falsifiable. I'm not aware of anyone having proposed any way to falsify macroevolution. Instead, every time some discovery is made that should have been accepted as falsification has been brushed aside as a mere "adjustment"; that is, they keep moving the goalposts. So the charge of "dogma" lies as surely at the feet of evolutionism as any other faith-based system; its zealots have unshakable faith that no discovery will ever refute it, hence it is unfalsifiable.

This is the typical unscientific commentary told by creationists that attempt to fool people through such vague and unsubstantiated claims. The term macroevolution is not used by real scientists, only by creationist lackeys. Evolution is a fact. The theories attempt to explain the fact of evolution.


Macroevolution is merely a "handle" on the teaching also known as "molecules to man". It means the belief that life evolved from nonlife, whether on this planet or some other, regardless of how far back the line is pushed. It is evolutionists who invented the theory, not creationists.

Macroevolution is a silly term created by creationists in attempt to pretend that small changes and large changes are different. Only quacks such as creationists think that is the case.


you deny a global flood

Where is the evidence of such an event? There is none. The fossil record does not suggest a global flood. The geology of the world does not suggest a global flood.


Both sides have the same evidence but different theories

Not true at all. Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It may be in the vernacular, but not in the way that scientists use the word.


yet only one side fears and even goes to law to silence the other.

Consider the Dover case. The creationists were shown to outright liars in that case and that is why they lost the case. It is the creationists that use the law to attempt to force their way of thinking on others. The Scopes monkey trial was about a law that made it illegal to teach evolution. Lawmakers in Kansas and other states have attempted to use the law to silence science. You are correct. Creationists use fear and even go to the law to silence others.


I'm here because the sacred cow theory of plate tectonics is finally being seriously challenged

By what foolishness? By hydroplate and expando earth? These ideas were long ago shown to be flawed and were dropped as possible theories of the Earth long ago. Hydroplate was DOA.





top topics
 
85
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join