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

page: 32
85
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 



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.

Expanding Earth has a number of enormous flaws.

1. The current continents have pieces from previous continents that do not work if they were separated only once.
2. The missing mass. Suggesting some wacky source for the extra mass is as funny as the claims made to support the long dumped idea of pyramid power.
3. Doesn't explain the existence of orogenic zones.
4. Does not explain the existence of salty domes


Look over the thread and see how silly the expando earth is in.




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


sure expanding earth theory has a few problems.......but it has waaay more explanatory power than anything else!

You are probably unaware of the truly enormous and fatal flaws in the techtonic plate models - subduction seems to be a myth, with all the evidence for it being indirectly inferred - since they know plates are expanding - then they simply have to accept that they must be being consumed somwhere else - even though they have no plausible mechanism for that ever to happen, having given up on ridge push and magma convection they are now clinging to slab pull.

see 'triple geo sphere theory' to fill in the missing gaps.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by stereologist
 


sure expanding earth theory has a few problems.......but it has waaay more explanatory power than anything else!

You are probably unaware of the truly enormous and fatal flaws in the techtonic plate models - subduction seems to be a myth, with all the evidence for it being indirectly inferred - since they know plates are expanding - then they simply have to accept that they must be being consumed somwhere else - even though they have no plausible mechanism for that ever to happen, having given up on ridge push and magma convection they are now clinging to slab pull.

see 'triple geo sphere theory' to fill in the missing gaps.


Im not a geologist nor did i really enjoy geography in school....but from what i read in that article confused the hell out of me. My main hole that I couldnt find an answer to, was how matter was created to add to this expanding earth. The article said something about transmutation......a process that happens within stars from what I understand? Which then confuses me cause I thought transmutation was one element into another through nuclear fission but that doesnt (or wouldnt) add matter to the earth (or a star for that matter) does it? Is there anyway to shorten this article down into language that someone without a degree in this field of study could understand better?

To me this expanding earth opens up alot more questions then answers them, or maybe I just need to learn more about this and the sciences involved that explain them.
edit on 4-5-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be interesting to think that maybe just like animals and plants the earth grows in bascially the same way? As in taking solar energy and converting it into matter? Of course that would require DNA or someother self organizing intelligence. Also that would require us to view earth as an actual living organism.

Maybe the mystery lies in the center of the earth?
edit on 4-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


Another excellent video by Neal Adams.

This is something I have always wondered about myself. If all the planets land mass was on one side of the planet, it must have created enormous problems with the planets rotation. This is simple mechanics. It just doesn't seem possible.

I think the theory I put forth earlier on in the thread, provides a plausible explanation of where the mass cam from that expanded our planet.

Essentially there are large clouds of matter in space, and when our solar system enters those clouds, our solar system absorbs large quantities of matter. This could also very well explain the ice ages.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Baloney!!!


If all the planets land mass was on one side of the planet, it must have created enormous problems with the planets rotation.


IF you mean the ancient mega-continent we now call "Pangaea"....you just have a distorted view of what it means....the amount of land ABOVE the ocean's mean sea level. Not enough to cause a global "imbalance"!!!

No wonder this Neal Adams BS fools so many people....they just don't realize the fallacy of their initial set of "beliefs" and assumptions......



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by poet1b
 


Baloney!!!


If all the planets land mass was on one side of the planet, it must have created enormous problems with the planets rotation.


IF you mean the ancient mega-continent we now call "Pangaea"....you just have a distorted view of what it means....the amount of land ABOVE the ocean's mean sea level. Not enough to cause a global "imbalance"!!!

No wonder this Neal Adams BS fools so many people....they just don't realize the fallacy of their initial set of "beliefs" and assumptions......


Ive just taken a look at his site, and though it sounds as if he knows the basics of geology and states existing theories, he fails to cite ANYTHING. I tried to find any citation and couldn't (correct me if im wrong).
Neal Adams science is exactly that....HIS science.

The one thing I got from one of his rants was that science must be rewritten. Im assuming that even includes its basic mantra of proof and the burden of providing evidence of said proof.
I agree, this guy should not be taken seriously.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Pangaea is nothing but a theory, and a very questionable theory at that.

I know you desperately need to see the world in precise terms, but that isn't reality.

Ever balance a tire? I guess not.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


The expando earth so-called theory has zero explanatory capability.

Your claims about subduction are so far off the mark it is not funny. Subduction is a well studied process. The interactions of the plates at subduction zones is well studied. Seismic evidence makes it possible to map the plate boundaries and to determine the motions of the plates.

Plates are note expanding, at least not in the sense used by the flawed idea called expanding earth. Thermal changes in plates actually causes shrinkage in the sense of volume change used in expando earth. The method of plate destruction is well studied and has been for decades.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


We've already been over this nonsense. It would take millions of Hiroshima bombs of energy over every square kilometer to provide enough energy fot he Earth to grow as claimed by the expando earth theory.

Are you being charred every second of the day from this incoming energy?



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by topherman420
 


It is hard to tell, you seem to lack critical thinking skills, but are you saying that science should be static, and that it shouldn't change when new evidence comes to light?

Are you saying that the new evidence that has been gathered by mapping the floor of our oceans should not be considered in changing theories that this new evidence contradicts?

Sounds like you prefer your science to be more like religion than science.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



This is something I have always wondered about myself. If all the planets land mass was on one side of the planet, it must have created enormous problems with the planets rotation. This is simple mechanics. It just doesn't seem possible.

Look up isostacy and center of gravity to find out why this is not an issue.

Your claim that the matter came from space is a dead issue as well as was shown earlier in the thread. The surface of the Moon shows how little incoming material there is from space. There isn't enough to raise the surface fo the Earth more than a few centimeters in billions of years.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yes, we have gone over this.

Our solar system plowing through a massive could of dust in space over thousands of years would explain how the expansion occurred.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You continue to show your lack of understand of the Earth. There is no fixed axis as in a tire. This is not an issue of balancing a tire. Misrepresenting the situation simply shows a lack of understanding.

Pangaea is a theory if you will, but it is a scientific theory, not a guess as you propose and it is a firmly established theory on the basis of geology and paleontology.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No, the moon does not show that there has been no expansion. That is your theory, for which you yet to provide any evidence.

You continue to provide nothing to back up your claims.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The same olf sleight of hand trick quacks use so well,.

The information from the oceanic crust is what sealed the fate of such ideas as continental drift and the expanding earth and other wrong ideas.

The oceanic crust information made plate tectonics the theory it is today,



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Ever balance a tire? I guess not.


Thank you for demonstrating my point, above.

Trying to equate a tire (HOLLOW in the center, most mass on the outer edge and rim) to the reality of a SOLID planet, like Earth? Where the majority of mass is centrally located, and the actual crust itself, in comparison, is "paper-thin"?

That is the more appropriate analogy. Another is to compare the crust of the Earth (even as much as twenty miles of it, in depth...for example) to the rest of the globe, as to compare the skin of an apple to the entire fruit.

(Notwithstanding the very, very slow relative rotational rate, as well...of the Earth....)


Back to the crust, and just the outer 20 miles (just a random number, for emphasis...use any other depth you wish, to compare similarly):

The total diameter of Earth (in miles) is 7,925 (average, since it's oblate).

20 miles, as a percentage of that total = 0.00252%

2 1/2 thousandths of one percent. Even if you double that, for either side of the planet....still infinitesimally small.

Can you not understand this??



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So where is the material? there is hardly a thing on the Moon.

Where is the material? No material no substantial accretion. Your idea is dead> It does not work.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So where is the material? there is hardly a thing on the Moon.

Where is the material? No material no substantial accretion. Your idea is dead> It does not work.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by topherman420
 


It is hard to tell, you seem to lack critical thinking skills, but are you saying that science should be static, and that it shouldn't change when new evidence comes to light?

Are you saying that the new evidence that has been gathered by mapping the floor of our oceans should not be considered in changing theories that this new evidence contradicts?

Sounds like you prefer your science to be more like religion than science.



I do not believe such things. In fact I believe that science is an ever changing creature, but in that process scientists have put their reputation on the line and been able to prove their theory to their critics. It seems other scientists are more willing to go back to the drawing boards and rethink their idea and find other ways of proving other then the same tired theories with no proof.

Please dont make accusations on my personal beliefs of science.





new topics
top topics
 
85
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join