It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
85
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The problem for the expanding Earth theory is that it takes additional mass to increase the size of the Earth. The proposal is that energy from the sun increases the man. Ludicrous! I showed that the energy per square kilometer of Earth is billions of Hiroshima bombs a year. That's millions a day. Feeling normal or microwaved? That's not happening. Claiming that material boiling out of the Earth comes to the surface without leaving a void inside of the Earth is rather ludicrous as well. Claiming that accretion of extraterrestrial matter onto the Earth heats the Earth and leads to expansion is ludicrous.

No matter how you look at it the expanding Earth claims are an utter failure.

The claim of subduction failing is not supported by the overwhelming evidence which allows geologists to map the plates using seismic data. These methods show the plates in 3-d as they plunge into the Earth.




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Granite is not porous. You still claim it is.

Still makes it porous.

The porosity as I told you and you did not dispute is that it is due to cracks from SHRINKING not expanding.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by poet1b
 


The accretion of material from space is on the order of a centimeter a billion years. It is ludicrous to claim this increases the pressure in the interior of the Earth. The interior heat of the Earth is not due to the accumulation of materials from space. Also, the mantle is not liquid. There simply is no evidence for expansion.


Th expanding Earth isn't exactly a completely worked out theory, but it does make a lot more sense than the idea of one crustal plate being forced down under another, piercing into the much more dense mantle.

Not a worked out theory? It is one of the STUPIDEST ideas proposed yet. Nothing about it makes sense. Here you are claiming that the accretion causes expansion when that is obviously nonsense. The accumulation is marginal. Please show us how the increased mass would provide enough energy for thermal expansion. Obviously it cannot.


If Plate Tectonics theory is so complete, please explain this problem. How is the Pacific ocean being shrunk, when all evidence points to the Pacific Ocean expanding?

Measurements show it is not increasing.


The theory still needs development, but already it is more complete than the concept of tectonic plate drift.

The idea was trashed a long time ago, but it keeps coming up like flat earth, and 2012. It is simply a failed idea.


In the Expando Planet or Earth theory (or EE) if, as the theory goes, plasma from the sun is accumulating in a plasma core of the planet. Eventually, over thousands of years it gradually builds up, but also relieving pressure by expanding, stretching (earthquakes, volcano eruptions) and then eventually ripping apart at the seams where it is thinner.....when it gets to a peak point and then is aggravated by an extremely active seismic cycle.

There is a type of plasma called "dirty plasma" which could be adding matter to the core, or mantle, getting drier and becoming more solid as it rises. A period of heavy solar activity might cause the matter accumulating to eventually get to a point where a thin spot would stretch, and eventually break, thus the expansion.

Since a large area of the fault lines or *plates* as the tectonic or subduction zone believers like to say, are located under water, the expansion would not affect the GPS beyond the generally accepted number the scientists will admit to, especially since I believe they are setting the vertical movement to zero, if I remember correctly. Possibly, the pressure of the water, would help to contain the expansion to a certain level until an extremely active seismic cycle occurred, creating a tipping point where the expansion occurs rapidly and violently, which could be cyclical.

This could be why we are seeing an uptick in volcano and earthquake activity.

Since the earth is 70% water, and less than 5% (or less) of the ocean floor has been explored, I think even a pretty large expansion might go unnoticed.

That would mean the major part of the expansion would be under water, which would actually raise the level of the water, as you can see if you do an experiment such as taking a bowl and putting some water in it. Empty the bowl, put a rock in it, and then put the same amount of water in it. What do you see? The level of the water goes up, because the rock has displaced some of the water.

By the way, recently, scientists have discovered water coming from black holes in space, and also, coming out of the sun.
Black Holes spews water vapor
Water found on the sun

If plasma comes from the sun, and water has been found on the sun, and water can be broken apart to create plasma, it's seems like it would be possible to convert plasma into water. Perhaps that's where all the water on the earth originally came from.

Dirty Plasma entering the earth core, (already containing water) the material accumulating, and then oozing up (or being forcibly ejected in the form of magma) from the tears in the ocean floor. This could be where the additional material needed for the expansion is coming from.





edit on 12-3-2011 by sezsue because: clarify

edit on 12-3-2011 by sezsue because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


I pointed out in an earlier post that the energy transfer to the Earth is nonsense to build up matter. It requires a transfer of billions of Hiroshima bombs per year per square kilometer of Earth. That is clearly not happening.


There is a type of plasma called "dirty plasma" which could be adding matter to the core, or mantle

If plasma were hitting the atmosphere it would be detected. If it is passing through the air as energy it would be frying up as millions of Hiroshima bomb energies per square kilometer a day.


...since I believe they are setting the vertical movement to zero...

No. Vertical movements are common. The city of New Orleans sinks. The coast of Virginia is sinking. This is detectable by GPS and tide measurements.


Possibly, the pressure of the water, would help to contain the expansion to a certain level until an extremely active seismic cycle occurred, creating a tipping point where the expansion occurs rapidly and violently, which could be cyclical.

Water has a specific gravity of 1 while granites are around 2.7 and other rocks are heavier. Why consider water which is relatively light compared to rocks.


This could be why we are seeing an uptick in volcano and earthquake activity.

Neither is increasing.


Since the earth is 70% water, and less than 5% (or less) of the ocean floor has been explored, I think even a pretty large expansion might go unnoticed.

To clarify, the Earth's surface is 70% covered by water. The ocean floor is well mapped by satellites. The maps are not in great detail, but the structures are known.


That would mean the major part of the expansion would be under water, which would actually raise the level of the water, as you can see if you do an experiment such as taking a bowl and putting some water in it. Empty the bowl, put a rock in it, and then put the same amount of water in it. What do you see? The level of the water goes up, because the rock has displaced some of the water.

This is very wrong. The water level should drop since the volume of the bowl increases and the water volume is constant.


If plasma comes from the sun, and water has been found on the sun, and water can be broken apart to create plasma, it's seems like it would be possible to convert plasma into water. Perhaps that's where all the water on the earth originally came from.

The amount of water that could supply is marginal at best. More water arrives as ice from space. The influx has been detected by UV satellite imagery.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I thought all rocks have a measurable amount of porosity, granite being less than most but with some types of granite more porous than others. A case in point, a town near me recently had a facelift of the main street and promenade using granite imported from China. Some areas of the granite have become badly stained as they absorb pollutants. They left the original kerbs which are of local Mourne granite which is a much denser and darker material and does not have a staining problem.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sezsue


Since the earth is 70% water, and less than 5% (or less) of the ocean floor has been explored, I think even a pretty large expansion might go unnoticed.

your reply:


To clarify, the Earth's surface is 70% covered by water. The ocean floor is well mapped by satellites. The maps are not in great detail, but the structures are known.


Not all of the floor is mapped, what has been, is in very poor detail, and very little at deep levels has been studied in depth, because of the enormous constraints in being able to do so. More is known about the surface of the moon than the bottom of the ocean. (I looked this up and read various scientific commentaries that stated this.)


my statement:

That would mean the major part of the expansion would be under water, which would actually raise the level of the water, as you can see if you do an experiment such as taking a bowl and putting some water in it. Empty the bowl, put a rock in it, and then put the same amount of water in it. What do you see? The level of the water goes up, because the rock has displaced some of the water.

your reply:

This is very wrong. The water level should drop since the volume of the bowl increases and the water volume is constant.


This statement by you above, **** which is very, very, VERY wrong ****, is enough to make me discount EVERYTHING you have said in this thread.

The volume of the bowl DOES NOT increase, it stays the same, but you are adding something (matter) to the bowl which takes up space and actually decreases the amount the bowl will hold.

I KNEW MY EXPERIMENT SUGGESTED ABOVE WAS CORRECT. AND I JUST CONFIRMED IT BY ACTUALLY DOING IT.

To paraphrase *Weedwacker*, I think we did this experiment in grade school, what are they teaching in science these days.


Haven't you ever taken a bath, or given a dog or a child a bath? Cause if you have, you know the moment you sit down, the water level goes up. I think it's called "displacement."

Did you even try it yourself, before you said it was wrong?

It's easy to make statements that sound good and you make all kinds of statements without any links to back them up. That's easy. I check on everything I put up, or I already know something about it, and double check to make sure I'm right before posting.

Now I, and everybody else should know to double check everything you post, when it comes to anything except your own opinion.

Opinions aren't scientific facts, so are you deliberately trying to steer people in the wrong direction?

A few posts back, someone said originally they kind of doubted this theory, but when they see WEEDWACKER and STEROLOGIST (and a few others I could name) seriously flocking to debunk something, it makes them take another look.


Of course, we are talking about a possible alternate THEORY here. What was an accepted THEORY proposed 50 years ago (Plate tectonics, subduction zones, etc.) could change over time as more information becomes available, and technology needed to study phenomena becomes more available.

Just like the *continental drift theory* was ridiculed and then gradually accepted, and then gradually parts of that theory was replaced by *plate tectonics /subduction zones* which seemed to fit better.

If you think about it, some parts of the *expansion theory* pretty well describes *plate tectonics /subduction zones* end result or actions.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I thought all rocks have a measurable amount of porosity, granite being less than most but with some types of granite more porous than others. A case in point, a town near me recently had a facelift of the main street and promenade using granite imported from China. Some areas of the granite have become badly stained as they absorb pollutants. They left the original kerbs which are of local Mourne granite which is a much denser and darker material and does not have a staining problem.


You're right smurfy, I was just reading about granite yesterday, and the information I was finding was talking about the staining problem, which can be worse depending on what type of granite.

Some of the information was suggesting that granite in the home could cause a problem with RADON out-gassing from the material, and they were talking about how there are measurable emissions which are lower or higher based on the type. One of the suggestions was to seal the granite on a regular basis to control the gas emissions, and also to stop staining.

Obviously, if it can be stained, or out gasses radon, and has to be SEALED, it must be porous.

(Wonder if people who put expensive granite counters in their kitchens were told about this problem
)
edit on 12-3-2011 by sezsue because: add



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Granite, like all rocks weathers. The quartz is more resistant to weathering. The feldspars do weather more readily than the quartz. Staining if more likely the result of the weathering of the mafics in the granite that contain iron and manganese minerals. Better quality granites do not weather and produce the staining effects that are eyesores.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 



Not all of the floor is mapped, what has been, is in very poor detail, and very little at deep levels has been studied in depth, because of the enormous constraints in being able to do so. More is known about the surface of the moon than the bottom of the ocean. (I looked this up and read various scientific commentaries that stated this.)

True to some extent. The detail at which the moon can be mapped is dependent on the surface detail seen by cameras. The oceans do limit the ability to see the bottom. But there are other modalities available for the studies of the ocean such as satellite paths and seismic data. The level of detail is not poor in terms of featues such as guyots. The position and size is well known. Although the resolution of the images of the moon's surface are better, we know quite a bit about what is beneath the surface of the oceans, something we cannot do in lunar studies.


This statement by you above, **** which is very, very, VERY wrong ****, is enough to make me discount EVERYTHING you have said in this thread.

The volume of the bowl DOES NOT increase, it stays the same, but you are adding something (matter) to the bowl which takes up space and actually decreases the amount the bowl will hold.

If the Earth expands then the bowl gets larger. I'm sorry but that's a DUHHHH.


I KNEW MY EXPERIMENT SUGGESTED ABOVE WAS CORRECT. AND I JUST CONFIRMED IT BY ACTUALLY DOING IT.

YOUR EXPERIMENT DOES NOT MODEL THE SITUATION OF AN EXPANDING EARTH!!


Did you even try it yourself, before you said it was wrong?

Did you even think about the fallacy of your claim before you posted it? Clearly not.


Just like the *continental drift theory* was ridiculed and then gradually accepted, and then gradually parts of that theory was replaced by *plate tectonics /subduction zones* which seemed to fit better.

Continental drift and plate tectonics are very different. I invite you to read egener's book to understand why.


If you think about it, some parts of the *expansion theory* pretty well describes *plate tectonics /subduction zones* end result or actions.

The expanding Earth theory is a failure. There is no way to increase the mass of the Earth to increase its size. There is not enough influx of matter and there is no way to get enough influx of energy to concert into matter.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 



Obviously, if it can be stained, or out gasses radon, and has to be SEALED, it must be porous.

Staining is often a surface event. Sealing is to seal small cracks. The cracks are due to the granite shrinking.

The only reason anyone is claiming that granite is porous is to try and attempt to shore up the notion that pore spaces allow the Earth to increase in volume without adding matter. There is no way that the minor pore space in granite can double the size of the Earth.

The pore issue is nonsense when it comes to shoring up the failed expanding earth tale.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I don't usually talk about Planet X for the simple reason that I don't believe it exists. Something has been bothering me lately however, and it's about something I overheard in a conversation about 2012 and the supposed arrival of this Nirubu/Planet X. Try as I might, I couldn't tune out what the people were talking about, although I'm now beginning to wish I could have, especially in light of this latest earthquake in Japan. From what I could gather, it seems that Planet X has been coming closer to Earth each time it returns and passes us on its orbit. This is what has me also thinking about "2012" perhaps being much more than just the end of the Mayan Calendar. Someone in the group was saying that Planet X was now on a collision course with Earth, but they had been informed that the scientists of Nirubu had solved the problem and there would be no collision. By this time the whole place was quiet, as other customers of the little restaurant/coffee shop had caught on to the same conversation as I had. Whatever it was the scientists of Niburu had invented, it was meant to cause earthquakes on our planet. At first they would appear to be natural and what we would call "run of the mill", but for the several years preceeding 2012 they would increase in intensity, and end up with a series of 'quakes that would litterly rip the Earth apart, resulting in Planet X carrying on in its orbit, minus the collision with our planet. It is this latest earthquake that now has me wondering!



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 

That's about it alright. That article may have included the testing of granite worktops for radiation and outgassing, it may also include that the debate goes on as to whether the worktops are harmful or not. A recent study researched for Marble Institute of America found them not harmful. The American Association of Radon Scientists and Technicians see it differently. Either way, it is likely that the EPA will come up a new standard derived from the EU, that could make Marble Ins' research moot. There is also a lot of debate about the Dinos'. New thinking is that they would not survive in today's world, because of a lack of oxygen 21% as against 35% in their world. whether that means their world was lighter/smaller I don't have a connection, but it is interesting.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


Earthquakes are surface events. The energy may be transferred through the planet via P and S waves, but the effect does not rip the planet apart. Gravity keeps the planet together. Nothing can escape the planet or rip ir apart unless parts reach escape velocity.

Planet X does not exist within the orbits of the known planets. That is demonstrable. Any unknown planet must be very far away. Even an Earth sized object would have to be beyond the Kuiper belt and never enter the orbits of the known planets.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I would be interested in reading about oxygen levels at the time of the dinosaurs. I do know that the levels were much higher earlier in the Earth's history. I thought levels were down before the Mesozoic era. Thanks for any links.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Now, that's ONE thing we can agree on,


I have read various theories regarding how man could have lived for many years longer than we live now, according to what the Bible says (
) and one of the theories was that there was much more of an oxygen content in the atmosphere, and much more moisture, as well.

Recently I read that the oxygen level in the atmosphere is getting lower. (But not in the Bible,
)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Bkrmn
 


Earthquakes are surface events. The energy may be transferred through the planet via P and S waves, but the effect does not rip the planet apart. Gravity keeps the planet together. Nothing can escape the planet or rip ir apart unless parts reach escape velocity.

Planet X does not exist within the orbits of the known planets. That is demonstrable. Any unknown planet must be very far away. Even an Earth sized object would have to be beyond the Kuiper belt and never enter the orbits of the known planets.


Regardless of whether planet Nirubu or planet X is heading our way, which I don't really believe in....the moon, sun, and other planets DO affect processes on Earth.

I was doing some reading for another thread, the March superquake to hit America, which is in the Skunk works forum now, and the Russians and a lot of other scientists seem to be concentrating on finding out how to predict earthquakes/volcano eruptions based on what is happening in space.

I read that the planetary alignments right now or in the near future is creating a gravitational pull on earth that could cause some problems.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Are you suggesting that oxygen levels in Mesozoic times are related to recent levels? I'm not sure what you are saying.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


There is very little correlation between geological events and objects outside of the Earth. The evidence for a correlation between the Moon and earthquakes suggests that a very few types of shallow earthquakes originating in oceanic crust may be related to the Moon. There does not appear to be any correlation between earthquakes and the sun. There does not appear to be any correlation between eruptions and these 2 objects. After that the other heavenly bodies in the solar system do not even the tides. The simple answer is that these events are not in general related to other bodies in the solar system.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sezsue
 



Obviously, if it can be stained, or out gasses radon, and has to be SEALED, it must be porous.

Staining is often a surface event. Sealing is to seal small cracks. The cracks are due to the granite shrinking.

The only reason anyone is claiming that granite is porous is to try and attempt to shore up the notion that pore spaces allow the Earth to increase in volume without adding matter. There is no way that the minor pore space in granite can double the size of the Earth.

The pore issue is nonsense when it comes to shoring up the failed expanding earth tale.


Forget about expando for a second. All rock is porous, and on a measurable scale, (porous=the void fraction, which is the fraction of the volume of voids in a total volume) Granite therefore is porous from tip to toe. It is lower on the scale of porosity, but since there are many types of Granite a result can be varied. The porosity can be measured in different ways, modern equipment can allow that to be done visually. By the way, your first sentence contradicts your last. It would be better to debate the thread from a different angle than the properties of granite.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


And once again, you throw out a lot of claims with out providing any evidence.

So someone threw out a number, we should all stick to that as an absolute?


It is also (surprisingly) being suggested to be a relatively short process, for the most part....on the order of a few hundred million years.


Based on what? The evidence shows that Earth has had numerous large strikes throughout its history.

Age of the moon has nothing to do with it, but if you bothered to look up at the moon, you would notice some very large craters. Hard to believe those asteroid strikes didn't have a great deal of effect on the moon.

Byrd still claims that granite is not porous, even though she acknowledges that water penetrates the surface of granite, and I have provided a link backing up the reality, and a quick internet search provides tons of information on the topic. At some point, it isn't worth replying.

How much mass would an asteroid big enough to carve out the Hudson Bay, or the Arctic Ocean, add to the Earth?

A link on this thread has been provided to a site where numerous people with considerable credentials, and a few Universities as well support the Expanding Earth theory. This is a theory that is gaining momentum.

Being that you know it all, they should have checked with you before attaching their names to such preposterous nonsense.

Then again, you might want to consider that your cheap dismissal of the theory makes you come off as pompous.





edit on 12-3-2011 by poet1b because: change a word



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join