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

page: 5
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 

From what I've read, I'd tend to discount this theory, except for the fact that Weedwhacker and Stereologist are trying so hard to debunk it.

When you see that, it's always worth another look...




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Knowledge of plate tectonics is due to the military and their mapping programs which came about in the search for enemy submarines. Before WWI the ocean bottoms were largely unknown. The expanding earth theory was developed in the absence of knowledge of 70% of the Earth's surface.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Interferometry studies are even more accurate than GPS and they show that the only places gaining distance are across known plate zones. Other places lose distance depending on the plate boundaries in between measured positions.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



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..."


The core does not flip. Changes in the convection currents cause the oritentation of the field to flip which is not the same as the core flipping.

Magnetic reversals are core events, not surface events. The crust does not slip. There has not been a crust slip in over 200My. A so-called pole shift or more properly a TPW is a slow paced event taking millions of years to complete.

3 days of night or 3 days of sun is not possible.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 



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

I'm not surprised that a hoax such as a plasma core for the Earth would be so recent. Lots of wacky ideas were being tossed out at that time such as pyramid power and plants can talk.


The outer core was assumed to be molten.

The propagation of different types of waves through the Earth reveal the extent and composition of the interior of the Earth. The outer is not assumed to be molten. The evidence comes from the travel of P and S waves.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zenius
 


Weedwacker made no such assumption. Even if the expansion were not manifested as a uniform effect at the surface yo would still see all of the dots moving apart. We don't therefore the Earth is not expanding.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I would say that the article in the opening post jumps to a whole lot of conclusions with no scientific proof.

I do love the expanding Earth video. I suspect that the expansion rate is to great, but there is open room for speculation.

The most compelling evidence from the video by Neil Adams is that when dating the ocean floors, they are all very young in comparison with the age of the land on the continents. I have yet to see anyone debunk this evidence, which I think was the strongest evidence presented in the video. I will research this information later.

As far as measurement of Earths expansion, here is an excellent article on the subject. I would go with this guys data as being reasonably accurate.

ray.tomes.biz...


Discarding amounts between 1% and 10% give results between 1.65 mm/year and 1.69 mm/year with an average of 1.65 mm/year. The median vertical movement is 1.33 mm/year, so the distribution is fairly skewed. A vertical movement of about 1.6 mm/year seems a reasonably representative figure. There does not appear to be any good reason to assume that this is anything other than the expansion of the earth.


If my math is correct, 1.6 vertical movement is radius, 3.2 mm diameter per year, 312.5 years 1m, 312,500 years 1 Km, so the Earth would have doubled in size the last 1,875 million years. Sounds reasonable. Of course, if the rate of Earths expansion has de-accelerated, then it could have doubled in size more quickly. I think it is more likely that the expansion of the size of the Earth would slow as time went on, not increase.

This doesn't jive with the dating for the ocean floors.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The most compelling evidence from the video by Neil Adams is that when dating the ocean floors, they are all very young in comparison with the age of the land on the continents. I have yet to see anyone debunk this evidence, which I think was the strongest evidence presented in the video. I will research this information later.

That's well known. The reason is that new oceanic crust is created at oceanic spreading ridges. What is also known is that the crust is youngest at spreading ridges and oldest along the continents as predicted by plate tectonics. What expando does not cover are subduction zones.

In the referenced article there are many claims which are simply not true.

Some stations are moving vertically far more than others and this is no doubt due to local plate tectonics. If the distribution was about a true mean of zero, then a sample of 1012 stations should have a mean of 0 with standard deviation of 1/sqrt(1011) standard deviations of the sample. It is actual 17 times this much away, an extremely significant result.

The stations do not represent an unbiased sample, which is the nature of the claim. The location of the stations is biased. One bias is that the stations are all on land. Another bias is that the stations are at cities. The standard deviation calculation is based on the assumption that the data are independent. They are not. Hence the standard deviation estimate is not correct.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



The standard deviation calculation is based on the assumption that the data are independent.


Based on your assumption. If you have the data available that proves that that GPS systems (there is more than one system) show that the Earth is not expanding, please post it, or a link to that data, because I am not seeing it out there.


What is also known is that the crust is youngest at spreading ridges and oldest along the continents as predicted by plate tectonics.


And if the numbers in the video are correct, then the whole plate tectonics theory is extremely implausible. You need to do a whole lot more to explain how this works, or provide a link that explains this a whole lot better.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
this maybe was posted before but has some good information....
hubpages.com...



During the 1960s experimental ocean drilling discovered the new seafloor growth along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge what shows that the Atlantic Ocean is a relatively new addition to the planet and is still growing, constantly adding new surface area: the drilling showed that some parts of the ocean floor are much younger and more thiner then the others. Earth Expansion Theory explaines why has sea level dropped by 16000 feet since prehistorical times.Simply answer could be, that our planet has expanded. The prediction of this theory is that the Earth will continue to grow (circa 22-42 mm - circa one inch-2 per year) in the future as well. This theory also explains that the other planets grow, as well as the whole Universe and it is good food for a thoughts about visible part of our Universe as well as good basis for further findings of geologists (and other scientists) who now try to connect all hypothesis about genesis of Earth in one unique theory (if they do not argue about them, what is unfortunately more often).



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Based on your assumption. If you have the data available that proves that that GPS systems (there is more than one system) show that the Earth is not expanding, please post it, or a link to that data, because I am not seeing it out there.

The author has clearly made assumptions and did not include them in the write up. The mathematical techniques employed are based on assumption of independence and that the sampling is unbiased. Clearly these are issues not met. Do you understand these issues?


And if the numbers in the video are correct, then the whole plate tectonics theory is extremely implausible. You need to do a whole lot more to explain how this works, or provide a link that explains this a whole lot better.

Quite false. Plate tectonics is well supported by oceanic crust in terms of the deposition of materials upon the crust, the age of the crust, the record of magnetic reversals, the subsidence due to cooling of the crust away from spreading centers, and other issues.


numbers in the video

Please tell us what numbers in the video are you concerned about?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



arth Expansion Theory explaines why has sea level dropped by 16000 feet since prehistorical times.Simply answer could be, that our planet has expanded.

I'm chuckling at the 16,000 feet drop claim. Oceans have risen since the melt of the ices that held water during the recent Ice Age.

You skipped this gem of a wacko idea that was also on the page you linked to.

Like anything else in this Universe, our planet is living organism, with its consciousness, with high developed intelligence, and everyone and everything what is alive - has natural need to progress, grow and explore oneself.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


since the most recent glacial maximum. However there were periods of salinity crisis PRIOR to this and times when seas dried or almost dried then were reflooded. This is a complex area of science involving millions of years of geology and vast areas of earth and sea, where some areas of earth are rising or sinking due to magma on the sea floor rising to and settling on the sea floor.

If earth was always a fixed size, how did this happen, it isn't likely in any branch of science. Consider this, there is a continual flow of magma under the sea floor which increases the mass of the sea floor and has often resulted in larger magma eruptions like volcanoes and earthquakes, this magma, over millions of years gets added to the earth's surface, all the mountain ranges, raising continents, as geology proves. This increases the mass and size of the planet....the magma chambers and core do not shrink when magma is released to the surface, therefore where do you think the added mass of magma goes to, answer, it sits on the planet's surface, and as any person of even the most basic intelligence will know, if you add a layer to something it gets bigger.

here's an example of reflooding
en.wikipedia.org...



A catastrophic flood refilled the Mediterranean Sea more than five million years ago, at the beginning of the Zanclean age that ended the Messinian salinity crisis. The flood occurred when Atlantic waters found their way through the Strait of Gibraltar into the desiccated Mediterranean basin, following the Messinian salinity crisis during which it repeatedly became dry and re-flooded, dated by general consensus to before the emergence of modern humans.[18] The Mediterranean did not dry out during the most recent glacial maximum. The depth of the Strait of Gibraltar where the Atlantic Ocean enters ranges between 300 and 900 metres (980 and 3,000 ft)[19] and the lower mean sea level of the last major glaciation 20,000 years before present[20][verification needed] is believed to have dropped only 110 to 120 metres (361 to 394 ft.
edit on 5-3-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)


Also, consider this, ask any archaeologist how far down history is, for example, normally a few metres for Roman, more for Iron age, more for Paleolithic, theres metres between surface and bedrock and this is INCREASING therefore the size of the planet is also INCREASING and this has happened for MILLIONS of years. 3metres in 2000 years, how many metres in millions of years?.
edit on 5-3-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-3-2011 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Those are reasonable assumptions. In any type of test or measurement these are standard assumptions that one would make unless there is evidence to believe otherwise. It is simply impossible to account for every possible variable, so reasonable assumptions are necessary.

Sorry, but plate tectonics is still a theory, and long ways from being proven. If you have some specific points to back up your claims, please make them, because otherwise, it is hard to take you seriously

The numbers I am talking about is the age of the ocean floor.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



If earth was always a fixed size, how did this happen, it isn't likely in any branch of science. Consider this, there is a continual flow of magma under the sea floor which increases the mass of the sea floor and has often resulted in larger magma eruptions like volcanoes and earthquakes, this magma, over millions of years gets added to the earth's surface, all the mountain ranges, raising continents, as geology proves. This increases the mass and size of the planet....the magma chambers and core do not shrink when magma is released to the surface, therefore where do you think the added mass of magma goes to, answer, it sits on the planet's surface, and as any person of even the most basic intelligence will know, if you add a layer to something it gets bigger.

It's not too hard to figure out why the Earth has always been about the same size. There has been a continual rain of material onto the Earth, but has not increased the size of the Earth a trivial amount.

A major mistake in your thinking is that mass redistribution is the same as a mass increase. An increase of mass int he sea floor is the result of a decrease in mass elsewhere. Any increase in continental mass is at the expense of a decrease in mass elsewhere. There is no increase in the mass or the size of the planet.

Look at this falsehood: "the magma chambers and core do not shrink when magma is released to the surface". That's utter nonsense. Changes in the size of magma chambers can be determined by seismic studies. They result in collapses and the formation of caldera.

Any person with even basic intelligence can understand you can't get something from nothing. To add a layer to something while obtaining the material from inside of the object means the size of the object does not change.

Your link to the wikipedia site shows that large scale local floods have occurred. So what! These involve the redistribution of water. These events do not form more water. They do not reduce the amount of water. It is a redistribution of water.


Also, consider this, ask any archaeologist how far down history is, for example, normally a few metres for Roman, more for Iron age, more for Paleolithic, theres metres between surface and bedrock and this is INCREASING therefore the size of the planet is also INCREASING and this has happened for MILLIONS of years. 3metres in 2000 years, how many metres in millions of years?.

Your numbers are shear baloney. There are areas of deposition. There are areas of erosion. Increased deposition is not happening on a worldwide basis.

Your inference does not follow from the claim of deposition. The Earth is NOT increasing in size.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Those are reasonable assumptions. In any type of test or measurement these are standard assumptions that one would make unless there is evidence to believe otherwise. It is simply impossible to account for every possible variable, so reasonable assumptions are necessary.

No, those are not reasonable assumptions. Those assumptions should not have been made as they were presented. At most the assumptions should have been posed as , "If the following assumptions are valid, then the following can be inferred."

There is a huge error in the math that you are overlooking with these false suggestions that any assumptions are applicable. One issue is how large is the bias? What is the magnitude of the bias? Another issue is the claim that the size of the Earth has been increasing in a linear fashion. Care to address that claim? That's a show stopper.


Sorry, but plate tectonics is still a theory, and long ways from being proven. If you have some specific points to back up your claims, please make them, because otherwise, it is hard to take you seriously

Anyone that thinks that the Earth is increasing in size is hard to take seriously. First off you need to learn what a theory is in science. It is not a guess or speculation as you seem to think. You might want to take the time to understand how theories are supported by evidence.


The numbers I am talking about is the age of the ocean floor.

Please show me the specific numbers. If they are from the video tell me what sections of the video to examine or better yet report the numbers here or point to the source of the numbers through a link.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


these diagrams show how the Earth could and probably did expand, and is still is, from Jurassic onwards, including Eocene Tectonic Event and shows all the 'ages' of the earth, as known and mapped from geology. This clearly indicates Expansion Tectonics as a valid theory.

Expansion Tectonics

Assuming all planets, including Earth just appeared randomly in space as a constant sized sphere is ludicrous.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I wanted to let everyone know that I have been busy over the last few days, but I have been monitoring the thread when I had a few minutes to spare, and am glad to see that people are enjoying discussing the subject. I just want to thank everyone for their posts, and especially the links that have been posted.

As I originally said, I am not a scientist, (and this is not my theory) but when I read the original article, I thought it was very interesting, and thought provoking. Considering what has been going on in the physical world, especially lately, I thought I would put it out there to see what our great minds here at ATS would make of it.

Because of the deep nature of the subject, I have had to do a little reading now that I have had some time, and I will try to address some of the questions and points that have been brought up.

BUT please keep in mind, as I already stated, that I am not a scientist, and most of the information I will be bringing forward comes from people that know a lot more about the subject than I do.

Thanks!
edit on 6-3-2011 by sezsue because: changes



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


PuterMan, thanks for the complement. I thought the article in general was interesting and expecially the "Expanding" part of it. Thanks for the links, I did look at them and thought they were very interesting.

Anyway, I think you could be right that the tectonic plate theory is connected somehow. I was kind of surprised that the plasma core portion of it has become such a sticking point. You'd almost think some of the people commenting on this have some kind of financial stake in some of the old theories.


Also, I read that the tectonic plate theory has only been around since about the 1950's.....but it also seems like information that is coming out now may actually also support the "Expansion" theory.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by zenius
 


I don't think the "Expanding Earth" theory is his.....and I don't know how much of this is his own theory or conclusion. I just thought it was interesting, although I'm not a scientist and have not studied a lot of this. Some of what he wrote in his article, I have read about in the past.

I just thought his article brought a lot of information together into a theory that seemed plausible, according to what I have read.

I do agree that some of his ideas are questionable, not necessarily in THIS article, but there is a lot that we still don't know about the way things work in the Universe.

edit on 6-3-2011 by sezsue because: grammar





new topics
top topics
 
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join