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.

 

April 16th 2011: Is our SUN expanding?...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   



Direct NASA Link:
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

We've been some pretty massive "bursts" on ATS here over the last year, however it's only been partial.
I've never, personally, saw a SOHO photo with the entire surface glowing.........


Camera filter issues? CME?
edit on 16-4-2011 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 

I dont know, I am into photography and judging by the amount of blurryness/lack of detail ... I guess I would call it 'fringing'.... It makes me think it out of focus.... rather than a giant flare




see how the candle flame becomes bigger the more out of focus the image is (even though it is further away)

edit on 16-4-2011 by el1jah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Yeah, it looks likes a filter issue. The shots before and after, the "space" is red not black,

it looks like a negative, where the colors are reversed....hold on ill try and post one of those.....



the next image


also, nothing showed up on lasco 3
edit on 16-4-2011 by BadBoYeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
We've been some pretty massive "bursts" on ATS


I, for one, have never "been" a massive burst of any kind...

Unless you count that time I ate a whole pot of chili, but we don't usually talk about that.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Woah

April-15-2011 SOHO


April-16-2011 SOHO

Something is up with our Sun....Could this be just like Google Sky?In those pics it looks as though "someone" is trying to crop pictures?!?

Just sounds like something the goverment would do to coverup a large effect from the sun....and all these chemtrails....hmmmm....now this really sounds coincidence...



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
From what I can remember, though, it's not an actual "camera" on it, is it? Isn't it just a CCD?

In other words, the image is not actually an "image" but a composite of the information coming into the CCD and being translated into an image format.

If that's the case, I'd think fringing would not be the issue at hand.

And no, I don't remember any images showing the sun to look like that, but there's smoe pretty dang bizarre pics to come from SOHO over the years lol



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spydrbyte25
Woah

April-15-2011 SOHO


April-16-2011 SOHO

Something is up with our Sun....Could this be just like Google Sky?In those pics it looks as though "someone" is trying to crop pictures?!?

Just sounds like something the goverment would do to coverup a large effect from the sun....and all these chemtrails....hmmmm....now this really sounds coincidence...


Well, OR, as a suggestion, you could just scroll up the thread and see the explanation.

That helps.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
say "Hello" to the CME that is headed this way. I find it odd that it's taking this long to hit Earth. Wasn't it suppose to hit sometime last week?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
say "Hello" to the CME that is headed this way. I find it odd that it's taking this long to hit Earth. Wasn't it suppose to hit sometime last week?


Uh, it did.

We had a lightshow.

That was it, unless you were expecting a global catastrophe from a CME launched by a C-class flare.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
No it's not expanding.

It looked perfectly normal when I took this photograph of it at around 18:00 UT (6 hours after SOHO took the image in question). I photograph the sun fairly often, and in this photograph, the sun is no larger than it is in any of the others.




You can even see sunspot groups 1190, 1191, and 1193 if you look closely.

The "flare" in the SOHO image looks like it may have been produced when SOHO was repositioning itself, and the disk that hides the sun let some of the sun light through at the edges during the procedure.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
well someday our sun will expand,


and then someday itll die. the earth will have been non habitable, so it doesnt really matter.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
No it's not expanding.

It looked perfectly normal when I took this photograph of it at around 18:00 UT (6 hours after SOHO took the image in question). I photograph the sun fairly often, and in this photograph, the sun is no larger than it is in any of the others.




You can even see sunspot groups 1190, 1191, and 1193 if you look closely.

The "flare" in the SOHO image looks like it may have been produced when SOHO was repositioning itself, and the disk that hides the sun let some of the sun light through at the edges during the procedure.


Amazing picture!!!
May I ask, how do you do it? I am highly interested in doing the same!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NyxOne

Uh, it did.

We had a lightshow.

That was it, unless you were expecting a global catastrophe from a CME launched by a C-class flare.


I thought it was an X-class flare. Now a C-class flare is one that just gives a light show where? I live in the middle of the US in the mountains and over the week, no Aurora has been seen.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Is our SUN expanding?

Of course it is! It'll become a red giant in about 5 billion years from now! Enough time to gorge on my pizza!!



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

Originally posted by NyxOne

Uh, it did.

We had a lightshow.

That was it, unless you were expecting a global catastrophe from a CME launched by a C-class flare.


I thought it was an X-class flare. Now a C-class flare is one that just gives a light show where? I live in the middle of the US in the mountains and over the week, no Aurora has been seen.


I believe auroras are seen further north.

The last X-class flare also happened over a month ago.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Well, the solar maximum is to occur over the next couple of years, so I would expect some interesting things, but honestly, it shouldn't expanding. Keep in mind, a start can expand, but if the temperature and lumen output remains stable, then it would be pretty much a non-point...though, I still would feel very uneasy and might start digging a hole into a mountainside.
edit on 17-4-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The Sun expands by a process called hydrostatic equilibrium, like a poster mentioned above, it will eventually expand into a red giant and its outer layers will form a planetary nebula, but this won't happen for billions of years.

It will, however, expand at a very slow rate as it uses the hydrogen in its core.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
You can't make leaps. You have to make the journey.

The current theory of planet formation proposes that the Earth, the sun and all of the planets of the solar system were formed from a giant dust cloud of particles which gradually condensed into ‘clumps’ of fixed size and have remained the same size ever since.

The Expanding Planet theory proposes that perhaps each heavenly body in space increases in size over time. This is achieved via one or both of the following processes; ‘accretion’ and ‘matter creation’.

Accretion is whereby mass is still being added to the planet externally as it sweeps through the universe. It states (correctly) that empty space is not empty, it is in fact still full of particles and cosmic dust. Dust may be very small in size – but not in quantity. As the Earth spins around the solar system and the solar system spins around the galaxy its gravity will pull any and all cosmic dust within gravitational reach like drawing a magnet across a table top sprinkled with iron filings (except it’s gravity, not magnetism). Over millions of years this constant addition of mass would not be insignificant.

As the planet travels through different parts of the cosmos it will accumulate dust particles of different compositions and densities, but that accumulation would be relatively constant.

The other proposition is that matter is created at the centre of a large enough body of mass.

The science bit – bare with it…

Gravity is a force that exists relative to a body with mass. There is zero gravity at the centre of a (large enough) mass. Imagine the earth being hollow and dropping a ball into it - it would fall to the centre of the planet and keep travelling, be pulled back to the centre and keep getting closer and closer to the centre, bouncing back and forth, until it would come to a complete stop in the centre.[Or, to visualise it better think of a heavy dense ball falling through a light, gaseous planet.]

There is Zero gravity at the centre. This is the centre of the mass, this is where the force of gravity pulls everything towards. Gravity is zero at the centre and increases in strength the further away from the centre our hypothetical 'ball' is pulled. It reaches 100% gravitational force at the surface of the planet- the outermost surface of the mass. The reason gravity becomes less the closer our imaginary ball gets to the centre is because the mass above it is also pulling it up.

The imaginary ball has a mass, therefore momentum. When it gets to the centre there is equal mass all around it and therefore being pulled back ‘up’ in all directions simultaneously – and is therefore weightless. The momentum would carry it on but then it would be pulled back and so on until it was stationary.

For Earth – Gravity is not exactly linear due to different densities of matter inside the planet (higher density is more mass occupying the same space), but it is still zero at the centre of a mass and 100% at the surface. Gravity then starts decreasing again the further you go out into space by a value inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the mass. (F= Mm/r2 ). Where ‘M’ is the mass of earth ‘m’ is the mass of the object you want to measure the force of gravity on and ‘r’ is the distance from the centre of M.

That’s gravity. Internal pressure is different. Gravity is zero at the centre of all bodies of mass, even the sun. But the pressure increases with mass, and the pressure increases at the centre of the mass. Gravity is how strong the external objects are pulled towards the centre of the mass and how ‘tightly’ it pulls that mass in at the centre. Pressure is the result of weight (pulled down 100% from the surface, 0% at centre itself and all strengths in between) as applied to the centre of the mass. The bigger the mass, the more force applied to the centre, the more pressure and therefore the higher temperatures and extremely high energy states. Higher temperatures and high energy states determines how strongly that force is trying to expand and push against the weight, just as the heat from a pan of boiling water will push against the lid. [Note: there is no ‘weight’ at the centre. Weight is a product of gravity. You are weightless in space because of lack of gravity – but you have the same mass and therefore same inertia or momentum]

Following this through, the central core of the planet is neither solid nor molten iron - it is a super heated, highly energised state of matter i.e. plasma.

As the planet gets bigger (via accretion), it generates more pressure at the central core, and can squeeze more electrons and protons onto an atom and join particles with higher atomic weights together i.e heavier elements. The heaviest (atomic weight, as opposed to density) naturally occurring element on Earth is Uranium. Perhaps when the mass of a planet is large enough, it begins this process of changing and joining elements until it produces fissionable material and it ‘ignites’. It becomes a little sun, a sphere of highly energised plasma surrounded by solid rock.

Given that atoms can be split to produce incredible amounts of energy it stands to reason that it would take incredible amounts of energy to join them back together again, or in other words to ‘create’ this matter from condensed energy itself (matter is condensed energy aka Bill Hicks). Such energy levels would be created at the central core of a large enough body of mass because of the intense pressure it would be under.

It would then not only be able to add electrons/protons to existing atoms or join atoms together to create compounds and molecules but actually create new matter from condensed energy. The first atoms would of course be the simplest, hydrogen and helium for example, which just so happens to be the most abundant elements in the universe. If every large enough body of mass in the universe had the ability to create them (in the beginning) it would be easy to understand why that was so.

Accretion is irrefutable. Matter creation is theoretical, but it is a logical deduction and therefore quite probable.

Expanding Earth

The expanding earth theory has been around for a while, but such is the dogma of the scientific community it was dismissed in favour of the fixed earth model. They knew about seafloor spreading, but dismissing accretion of cosmic dust as insignificant (with evidence to the contrary; silt levels in oceans, stratification (layers) of different types of rock – these come from above, not pushed up from below) and believing the core of the planet was molten iron (without any evidence) they preferred the idea of a fixed size Earth. In order to make this idea work they invented the idea of subduction zones whereby the seafloor spreading was cancelled out by the other side of the ‘tectonic plate’ sinking underneath another one. This defies both logic and physics. A lighter, less dense material cannot push down through a heavier, denser material whilst also going against the pressure pushing everything up (if there was no pressure pushing up we wouldn’t have volcanoes).

It is plain to see from a normal map of the world how the continents of Africa and the Americas used to be joined in ancient past but it is not as easy to visualise how the continents around the pacific join. This lack of vision seemed to verify (for some) the fixed Earth model.

However, some very god animations have been created which helps us along with this. Do youtube search for Expanding Earth.

And it can be seen, without any shoehorning but rather very natural movements, how all of the continents can indeed completely match up – but on a much smaller sized sphere. There is a lot more expansion on the pacific side, not all seafloor spreading is equal or at the same rate, but nevertheless the continents match up.

If the Earth was smaller in ancient past then gravity would have been less. If gravity was less then creatures would not be as limited in size as they are now which explains (and is the only explanation) why dinosaurs grew to such massive sizes. If a dinosaur were to exist today its muscles would not be able to support its weight and its heart would not be able to pump the gallons of blood around its body. Less gravity is the only logical solution to this ‘mystery’.

The future of Earth (and all heavenly bodies)

Plasma is electrically conductive and generates an electromagnetic field. As mass increases, eventually the pressure increase will create this highly energised central core, therefore all heavenly bodies will eventually generate a magnetic field the larger they become and this field will increase in strength and size the larger the body becomes. [Other factors may play a part in magnetic field strength; planet spin (speed and direction), influence from other fields, the composition of the planet (which elements), it’s density (Two bodies can be of the same size, but if one is denser it will have more gravity because it will have more mass compacted into the same ‘space’)]

As mass increases (accretion), gravity increases (pushing down 100% at the surface, less so the further down you go) therefore centre pressure pushing ‘outwards’ increases. The two are constantly fighting against each other and meet somewhere in between surface and centre.

A unit X increase in mass will correspond to a ‘rise’ of the (average) surface distance from the centre (radius/diameter increase). The bigger it gets the same X unit of mass corresponds to a smaller rise of surface distance from centre(radius/diameter increase). Another way of looking at it; the radius/diameter of a spherical body to increase will take more mass to increase the same distance from the centre of a bigger body.

Therefore, a steady linear increase in mass would (if this was the case, but it will be shown later that it is not) correspond to a gradual decrease in expansion of physical size but still maintain a steady increase of internal pressure as the same mass (and therefore weight) is added. (Remember, although gravity will also increase as well there is no gravity at the centre of a mass. Therefore there is no weight at the centre of a mass – the weight is everywhere else pushing down). Long story short; steady, linear increase in mass = physical size expansion slows down, but steady, linear increase of weight (pressure).

The central plasma core will therefore increase in intensity and size, steadily overcoming the relatively weak force of gravity and slowing physical size expansion until the plasma 'core' will reach the surface of the mass. This will gradually but continually disrupt the surface of the mass until it breaks up and becomes less stable and eventually gaseous. Jupiter and Saturn are examples of this. When the plasma 'core' completely reaches and expands beyond the boundary of the gaseous mass it becomes a star. Our sun is an example of that.


Magnetic Fields

Just as the sun displays fluctuations in its magnetic field, black spots and CME's, and flips like clockwork (22 year full cycle, 11 years to flip one way, 11 to flip another) the same process is happening inside our own planet. But the sun is ALL plasma. Since earth is not and the internal forces are still pushing against a solid (relatively speaking) mass the process is much slower and weaker (again, relatively speaking). But just as the process of magnetic 'flipping' is cyclical in the sun so it is with the earth.

The magnetic flip of the sun is said to be due to the speed of rotation of the planet, specifically the core but this is based on the iron core model. As mentioned previously, the spin may indeed play a part (is absolutely necessary in the iron core model) but with the plasma concept of the planet’s core, I believe it is actually due to the energy level (how hot, how 'excited', how pressurised) and size of the plasma core, both of which are directly proportional to the increase in mass of the body.

It should be noted that, as mentioned, a steady increase of mass plotted against physical size expansion (and therefore gravity) would show a decrease in the speed of that expansion. That example was used to elaborate a point. In fact, as a mass gets bigger, and consequently its external gravity increases, it will attract more mass, more quickly. The process of expansion starts slowly (as gravity is weak and it has a small surface area to 'suck up', 'absorb' matter(dust particles, comets, asteroids) as it travels through the solar system and as the solar system travels through the galaxy) but accelerates exponentially over time. Gravity pulls dust and particles from further away, pulls them more strongly and has a bigger surface area to 'sweep' space as it travels. If a steady increase of mass would limit size increase (in terms of speed of increase, not amount), but still show steady internal pressure increase (and therefore size increase) then an exponential increase of mass would correspond to an even quicker increase of internal pressure.

I propose that the 22 year sun cycle, the frequency of the ‘flip,’ is more likely dependent on, or caused by the intensity of the internal core of the sun. Spin may play an important part, but in my view the spin is due to the intensity of the pressure at the central core. In the same way an ice skater spins faster when she pulls her arms in, the tightly compacting of energetic plasma, via incredible pressure, into a smaller and smaller space (at least directly in the very centre, less so the further out you go. Viewed from the ‘top’ down it would resemble the shape of a galaxy; because the centre is spinning faster than the outer ‘arms’ it has a spiral shape – or how water falls down a plug hole – greater speeds at the centre of the ‘vortex) packs a proportionately larger amount of the mass into that space and has the same effect as ‘pulling the arms in’.

The suns core is spinning faster than its surface (as, according to this theory, all cores are spinning faster than the rest of the mass) and the current theory suggests it is a twisting and coiling of the magnetic field that eventually makes it flip and change polarity.

Since the core is plasma and not iron there is no dynamo effect in that a flipping of polarity would not create a change of direction of spin of the planet like a big electromagnet as proposed by some. If that was the case the sun would change direction of rotation every 11 years. Think of the ice skater as an energetic being that does a hand stand as she is spinning, discounting the gymnastics of it and focussing more on the direction of movement – it remains the same.

11 years is a relatively short time because the frequency of these pulsed flips is driven by the intense pressures and speeds involved. With Earth, the pressures and speeds are less so that time interval is increased – but the process is just as regular. It may be irregular in the beginning of a planets life but would increase in both frequency and regularity over time.

Please review the many physics equations that all relate frequency, wavelength, speed of light and energy. Although this is a different type of ‘frequency’ than the frequency of ‘flips’ I believe the two are somehow related.

This is a part of the theory where I need the help of a mathematician, especially one who knows about exponential functions. We know the mass, gravity and radius of the Sun and the Earth and from E=MC2 we know the energies involved in these masses - so there must be some way to work backwards from the 11 year sun cycle (the frequencies of which being proportional to the energies (pressure) experienced at the core (higher energy = higher frequency)), down the exponential curve, to arrive at a figure (much longer than 11 years) for our earthly ‘flip’.


Magnetic Pole Shift

Mainstream science has estimated previous magnetic pole shifts through the study of magnetised volcanic rock which has aligned with the magnetic poles when they solidified. However, this data was interpreted from the automatically assumed and not even questioned viewpoint that the earth has always been a fixed size. When the data is interpreted from the viewpoint that earth was in fact smaller in the past and the surface crust has increased and ‘spread’ from all tectonic ridges, therefore shifting the landmass’ that appeared at the poles (geographic and magnetic), it paints a different picture.

It would account for the magnetic poles moving considerable distances over time without the need for a crustal shift to explain it or a change of the global spin axis. The magnetic poles are not exactly in line with the geographic poles and they have been moving steadily since records began.

The northern magnetic pole is now moving at an estimated 40km a year towards Siberia and this pace is accelerating. The South Pole is also moving towards the east coast of Australia but at a steadier pace. They are both moving along the same longitude, (approx longitude of the Mariana trench), the left hand side of the ‘ring of fire’.

Possible Cause/s

The Earth spins 360 degrees in one day. This means it faces every point in the universe along the horizontal plane and it does this 365 time in one year. In other words, there is no heavenly body that is pulling the magnetic poles towards the Mariana trench. Such a body would have to be constantly facing the same part of the Earth at all times. This would only happen if this heavenly body was in a geostationary orbit. We would not be able to miss this. It would be like two people holding hands and spinning around, caught in each others ‘embrace’. It would have to be close to Earth. It would have to be gravitationally linked to Earth and nothing else. If it was too far out it would be tugged and pulled by other gravitational forces and spun away. And if it was close and in geostationary orbit and big enough to bend the magnetic poles we would not be able to miss it.

Perhaps there are large bodies out there and if they are they would influence our planet, but I don’t see how it would pull the magnetic poles towards one fixed place on the surface. It may affect the core in other ways, but in this case, the movement of the magnetic poles are INTERNALLY driven.

Some people have been looking for an external massive body to explain the increased seismic activity when the real danger is under our feet. It has been missed (or suppressed) because of huge misunderstandings concerning cosmology (planet formation) and in some cases basic physics (subduction).

Perhaps some massive body can influence our planet but it would be the plasma core that it is affecting via interacting magnetic ( via magnetic entanglement) fields, not gravity.

Magnetic fields can and do transfer energy between each other so there is the theory that just the presence of another large magnetic field entering our solar system (a magnetic field or magnetosphere is vast and it’s distance of influence far greater than gravity) can somehow ‘energise’ our core ( review ‘all planets heating up’) and therefore speed up internal processes that were already underway (movement of poles, discharge of energy towards pacific). And since all magnetospheres of all planets are interlinked and constantly influencing each other this extra ‘outside’ influence may only have to interact with the very outer edges of our solar system and the energy would ‘ripple’ throughout the entire system affecting all planets.

Increased magnetic energy in the sun could also translate into a transference of energy to our core and certainly a CME’s and solar flare’s do indeed affect our magnetic field and transfer energy, but again it would not create a consistent and persistent movement of the poles in one direction towards the surface of the planet. Direction must be a local/internal function – but external influences may ‘jump start’ or provide extra ‘juice’ to move it along.

Looking for a Dark Star or Brown Dwarf in deep space or waiting for a mass solar flare is to take our eyes off what is already happening and taking place under our feet. Something is pulling the trigger – whether it is some internal configuration of the springs or a ‘finger’ or both matters little in the end. As will (hopefully) be demonstrated we already have all the elements we need to explain what we are witnessing from our Plasma core, expanding earth model. We need nothing else.

As can be seen from the Expanding Earth model the pacific rift has increased in size much more than the Atlantic. It is partly the unmistakable jig-saw connections of South America and Africa that led to the idea of continental drift. The other side of the planet is mostly ocean and hard to visualise them connecting. So the mega continent of Pangaea was theorised, on a planet of the same size of today. However, as can be seen, the continents on the pacific side reconnect no less perfectly than the Atlantic side – you just have to use a smaller globe.

This leaves us with the knowledge that the pacific side has experienced a lot more of the planets growth than the Atlantic side. We can only assume that the internal structure of the planet was slightly weaker or less dense on that side compared to the other. The pressure sought the easiest path of release. It cracked the earth throughout the whole ridge system but some internal composition, the forming of which probably first began in its earliest of stages before it even had a gravitational strength strong enough to achieve a true spherical shape, was configured in such a way that the internal pressure found easier release on the pacific side, around the ‘ring of fire’ where the large expanse of seafloor spreading can be seen. If you boil an egg eventually it will crack somewhere and the insides will bubble out and expand at the crack – same idea.

Current theory suggests that the changing of the magnetic poles will not have any effect on earth. I believe the changing magnetic poles indicates changes in the central core of the planet, and it can have dramatic effects on geological stability. The magnetic poles are a reflection of where the centre of the energetic plasma core that generates it is situated inside the planet. Although it’s centre is the centre of the planet, it may ‘flow’ slightly more in one direction as the heat and pressure finds ways to the surface. Think of the core as a separate entity of super heated, energetic plasma encased in solid rock. As the pressure builds due to increase of mass it pushes upwards. In the places it finds easier escape the flow of energy pulls the ‘active’ centre of the plasma core towards the area of greatest release.

Although the poles naturally wander, the pace has been steady until recently. Both magnetic poles are moving towards each other between approximate longitudes of Western Australia to New Zealand and the North Pole is accelerating. This indicates the ‘active’ centre of the plasma core is ‘extruding’ or ‘flowing’ towards that side of the planet. The internal pressure has found a release path, or the internal pressure has ‘forced’ this path and now molten energised matter is forcing its way through the planet seeking to ‘release’ the pressure.

Note, I don’t mean the physical central core of plasma will move, only it is being ‘pulled’, or it is pushing/flowing in that direction more. Either the internal structure or composition of the planet is configured in such a way (by virtue of its irregular, pre-spherical shape perhaps) that the pressure finds weaker resistance there or some unknown component of the planets structure or composition is pulling more in this direction. To visualise this, imagine the internal workings of the Earth like a plasma ball, because that in effect is what it is.

And imagine that for some reason, some mechanism is creating a higher rate of ‘discharge’ in one particular direction such as when you place a finger or hand on the plasma ball.

Imagine this is the Earth. Either there is some weakness or extra ‘conductivity’ of internal structure of the planet between the ‘finger’ and core that allows for this discharge – or some quality of the surface is ‘pulling’ or ‘drawing’ that discharge more than elsewhere.
I believe water could be the equivalent of the finger; a liquid conductor.

Imagine Earth when it had just newly become spherical, as the initial cracks release magma and gasses of new elements (created at the core) and starts to create an atmosphere which then starts to create water (Or, perhaps water is one of the first molecules created as it only requires Hydrogen and Oxygen). First there would be pools and then eventually inland lakes and then oceans. I believe where water fell, settled and spread, these areas attracted the outflow of plasma from the central core and consequently the release of pressure (flow of superheated matter) was directed towards these places.

Perhaps initial volcanic and seismic activity was more evenly distributed at the beginning of the planets life (as in Fig 14) but concentrated in certain areas as rivers flowed from the highest points, joined other rivers and ‘pooled’ and these pools converged and joined other pools to create oceans. And perhaps the pacific was just the first large body of water to have formed on ancient Earth and consequently received the lion’s share of plasma ‘discharge’.

Certainly, these ‘cracks’ all seem to be (mostly) situated in the oceans or follow the edges of oceans.

It’s a theory.

So what?

The increased seismic activity all over the globe in frequency and intensity (including in the Arctic and Antarctic) indicates pressure building. The movement of the magnetic poles in the same direction and the acceleration of this movement indicate pressure building.

This build up of pressure can not only be accounted for with the Plasma Core, Expanding Earth Model, it may even be expected. The Earth’s magnetic poles ‘flip’ cycle may even be able to be predicted by extrapolating backwards the suns short duration due to its huge mass (an inverse function).

The idea of an expanding planet immediately conjures up images much like the animations that are available. However, the actual process may not be as smooth and linear as we would like to believe. We have to accept the possibility that a constant oozing of pressure and associated matter from the core to the surface is not the whole story. It would seem reasonable (to me) to accept that maybe that steady oozing is punctuated with violent bursts.

Much like our boiling pan analogy; steam is constantly coming out around the rim of the lid but if the pressure builds faster than the seal between lid and pan (weight pushing down) can allow it to escape then backpressure will build until it is equal to the task of lifting the lid. That conjures up disturbing images concerning the ring of fire - I’m not suggesting something as dramatic as that. But I still think it would be dramatic.

As well as the steady process of expansion there may be ‘expansion events’; either a burst or at least a marked increase in the rate of expansion. These could be part of the expanding process (hot material cools, solidifies, and needs to be ‘cracked’ open once again?). It could be part of the plasma core’s magnetic ‘flip’ frequency. Or it could be triggered by massive influxes of energy via interacting magnetic fields (magnetospheres) with another large cosmic body that is not normally within reach but has a large elliptical orbit bringing it close enough every X number of years.

What could cause this to happen is secondary to the realisation that it may actually already be happening and what that could mean for all life on Earth. There won’t be ‘Deep Impact’ style tidal waves and the planet won’t crack in two and eject molten rock. But there will be record earthquakes with accompanying record land mass movements, both horizontally and vertically, and I believe they will be centred around the direction the poles are moving towards, roughly the direction of the Mariana Trench and the whole ring of fire.

After the recent devastating Japan earthquake record land mass movements were recorded. Oshika Peninsula in Miyagi Prefecture moved east-south east 5.3 meters and dropped 1.2, and many other areas moved in an easterly direction (but not as much).

I think we will see a lot more of this and on a much more dramatic scale. I believe the land masses will move, grind and undulate by unprecedented amounts in the coming months and years, specifically around that area but not restricted to that area. And I believe the consequences will be dramatically rising sea levels that will cause untold flooding around the coastal areas of the globe.

There will also be severe and unusual weather due to changes in the oceanic ‘conveyor belt’ (the movement of warm and cold water around the globe) and disruptions in the Earth’s magnetic field. But I believe the most unexpected and devastating effects will come from the crust of the Earth ‘adjusting’ to building pressures underneath, causing local tsunamis and readjusting coastlines across the world in a very short space of time.

If I’ve made errors in my logic or there are fallacies in my theories then please point them out. Or, if it passes your BS detector then please look into these ideas for yourself from your own unique perspective, level of knowledge and ability and carry them forward.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odeian
There is Zero gravity at the centre. This is the centre of the mass, this is where the force of gravity pulls everything towards. Gravity is zero at the centre and increases in strength the further away from the centre our hypothetical 'ball' is pulled. It reaches 100% gravitational force at the surface of the planet- the outermost surface of the mass.
Actually, there is no net gravitational force inside a hollow sphere of uniform density.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
You can say the center of a sphere has zero gravity but that side steps the real issue of the intense pressure and heat near and at the center of a massive body due to gravity. Its this extreme pressure that facilitates fusion in a star due to its mass, due to its gravity that creates the pressure and heat for the nuclear fusion process that keeps the stars from blasting apart. When a star uses up its nuclear fuel this equilibrium balance becomes unstable and the star will expand, explode, a fissile out.

To Odelan, nearly every one of the points brought up about the expanding earth theory is simply wrong; earth gaining mass, the subduction zones, core composition, and so on can be examined in more detail demonstrating the errors in that post.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join