Growing earth theory explains a few things

Originally posted by Shamatt

I beleive the core of the planet is some sort of solid, possibly crystalised Iron (as per the link I posted) which would explain observations like siezmic waves traveling through the core at diferent speeds in diferent directions.

I have never found any evidence, nor any observation that would point to the earth having a small sun at it's core. This strikes me as not only counter intuitive, but also counter to everything I have learned about cosmology.

There are ideas among GE advocates about crystal core of the Earth but they are usually in the framework of a hollow center much like a Geode grows in rock cavities. Some of them combine the Geode structure with a plasma or ultra-electromagnetic force that allows the conversion of energy into atomic mass as a stage before crystal formation. And some ideas are discussed about a mini-sun like core that acts like a nuclear furnace and facilitates the conversion to matter from energy.

There is little conclusive evidence for any of these scenarios because none of them have been pursued through science research. The mainstream has basically shut out any such research from funding or scientific legitimacy. Growing Earth advocates debate the possibilities, some presenting what they believe is a more solid case than others, but it's all quite like groping in the dark and mysterious core. I'd only suggest that in the same way that you accept a form of Earth growth that institutionalized science tells us there is no evidence for, you might also remain open to a variety of possibilities. If you're more certain of a crystal structure and not plasma/sun core, it might help to try to elaborate on why not, based on your understanding, beyond that we haven't seen any evidence yet. We don't have much evidence for any of them, really. Seismic waves indicate a variety of possibilities at this stage because the depth of the core is so elusive as to render the data very questionable.

But this necessitates a little delving and research into particle physics. The conversion of energy to matter belongs in that area, and the newest information is coming out of the Supercollider with the manufacture of antimatter. Whatever is causing Earth's growth must be a process that can cause the same in galaxy cores, suns, moons and other planets. It must likely also touch at the formation of matter such as what's claimed in the initial seconds of the Big Bang, because of the amount of atomic matter that is apparently being manufactured. So, what's perceived as an exclusively Big Bang moment might well be a constant phenomenon in the celestial body cores. Seems a little early to say there can be no hollow plasma or nuclear furnace-like mechanism there. All indications point to a strong possibility of it. To say otherwise might need a more articulate case than simply not having seen any evidence for it.

I hope I have got the tone of this post right! It is intended as friendly and factual. I am not too good at juging such subtlety though, see my sig ;O)

Sounds pretty good so far and it's certainly an interesting discussion between bjarneorn and yourself. But I might impart from some experience in discussing this subject. It touches on nearly all aspects of study and human nature. Tempers can flare easily because everyone has a big stake in what they believe, especially when it's challenged. I've seen it teach a lot of people that what they held as self evident all their lives is not necessarily so. When all is said and done, the thing that matters most seems to be the spirit of debate. We all need to maintain a humility of not being entirely certain about it. It's the only way to advance the truths emerging from it because, among other things, we seem to need each other in order to test our own convictions.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
There is in reality, no conspiray of "science".

I don't know that a conspiracy needs to be so pre-meditated so as to assume an inherent mode of action. For example, if the entire affair started somewhat innocently and science became inadvertently locked into models that began suggesting problems.. then as you suggest, the academic system began to become defensive when its foundations were challenged... and in that defensive mode, science became less scientific or less loyal to the tenets of science, curiosity, debate and discovery... then there is a suppression of knowledge being perpetrated, as you suggest. So it didn't begin as a conspiracy but it developed into something quite like one.

So what do we do now?

Well, a lot of people are doing a lot of things on different fronts. Some are more amicable and others are more on the offence. The stakes are quite high for everyone. But we are much more the underdogs right now. We're fighting from the ground up against powers that occupy very high and powerful fortresses of skewered knowledge that they are demanding obedience to. It's a difficult position for us to be in. Some will strike violently straight at the head and others will more cordially chip away at the foundations. From our vantage point, the official picture seems so distorted that we need as much persistence and force of action as possible to unveil it. It may not be an official conspiracy (if there can be such a thing) but science has inadvertently conspired to suppress the scientific method and the knowledge it's meant to disseminate to the people. And whether they realize it or intend it to be so, it remains a near evident result of what they've done. Hence the conspiracy.

I think considering how snug their systems are sitting right now, they should be able to take such a beating on the chin. Not everyone has to be on the front lines and call it a conspiracy, but maybe we can allow the ones who are doing it a little legitimacy to do what they feel is needed there.

It's because Neal Adams called it a conspiracy that the debate escalated to the point that we have this thread today. I don't see much harm in such name-calling, considering it's somewhat true within the present framework. But I understand it's not for everyone.

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer

I think considering how snug their systems are sitting right now, they should be able to take such a beating on the chin. Not everyone has to be on the front lines and call it a conspiracy, but maybe we can allow the ones who are doing it a little legitimacy to do what they feel is needed there.

It's because Neal Adams called it a conspiracy that the debate escalated to the point that we have this thread today. I don't see much harm in such name-calling, considering it's somewhat true within the present framework. But I understand it's not for everyone.

edit on 17/7/11 by MichaelNetzer because: typo

I can understand why people want to call it "conspiracy". But I would actually advice to refer from using the word. If you go back a bit, you will see that many years ago, you could se "mystery" episodes on TV (I forgot what their name was), where Charlton Heston was the host. He was talking about Giant, and Nephilim, and religious things like that. And he was actually referring to things as "conspiracy" of Science.

I understand that you think it is hard to prove, something that should be so obvious. Yes, it is obvious. But it is for us, to come up with a convincing model. Not just a simple model of the Earth as it grows. But an explanation for most of it, just like a Cand. Phy., That has to defend his thesis. This is a thesis, and it must be defended. The people you are referring to as "conspirateurs", are your peers and just like your Professor at the University, you must convince them of your model. If they aren't convinced, we must go back to the drawing table and continue the work.

This is big stuff, and it has to be done right ... that our peers are judging us hard, is merely a nutch, a reminder that we must do better. As a young man, I always misunderstood my math Teacher, who was a doctor in Mathematics. I was the only one, he gave remarks of the kind he gave me. The reason was not because he didn't like me, or because he was conspiring to let me fail. It was a remainder, that I could ... and that I should, do better.

I remember one particular case, where we had a proof on an exam. I knew this proof, to 100%. I went over it, on the exam, and returned the exam paper with pride. Knowing I had right. I got a C+, and you know for what? In a series of figures, I forgot a '('. I had this one single mistake on my entire paper ... and got a C+. I was furious, because there were others who were far to wrong, had the math wrong and got a B+. At the time, I was working at the College, and as a worker at the College they could not give me leverage. The teachers point was, that my studies demanded that my work did not interfere, as so I could not afford any mistakes in my work.

Not a conspiracy, but a justified critique. And my point is, so are these arguements ... they are a justified critique, that demand of us, that we do our homework better, and plan our model better. We have to put together the pieces of the puzzle, in a way that we can convince our skeptic peers.

I think there is a very real conspiracy to steer the whole focus of human attention away from any direct contact with genuine transcendent experience - and hence away from all knowledge that points in that direction - as for instance a growing earth explanation does.

The attention of humans in all fields of knowledge, is being purposefully, systematically focussed exclusively on the material world and a robotic value-free existence.

The Gnostic writings described this as a sort of alien intrusion into the human realm by Archons - who seek to divert the human race from its proper destiny by posing as false gods (Yahwe Allah etc) or more recently as ET's
www.jayweidner.com...

No surprise then that the entire body of ancient gnostic and mystery school writngs were systematicaly destroyed by the Church - they were the university system of its day, all wehave left is the Nag hammadi codices found in 1947 - well except fot the manuscripts kept hidden within the vatican that wirnesses have reported.


You can see the same sort of blanket denial in Archeology for instance - where forbidden finds are just 'vanished'

I just came across an interresting information, in contrast with all of this. And that is the gravity map of the earth. When you consider this gravity map, you see that not only is there a rift close to the japan island, but there also is a gravity pull towards the pacific, for japan.

And furthermore, the Atlantic ridge that Iceland rests on. Is in a gravity hole. Gravity should be pulling Iceland down, and not allowing the two continents to drift apart.

I think this pretty much disproves continental drift.

The so called "subduction zone" in the pacific, has a gravity pull on both sides of it. Which says that it is a ridge, not a rift. The side of Japan, where the earth quake occurred is a gravity hole, pulling japan towards the pacific ocean. The pacific ocean, at the Canada, US site .. is a gravity mountain, literally. The north american continent can't drift that way.

What all this shows, is that gravity is not a question of mass. Not possible, because it's the new lava like light material where the gravity is the greatest. And the old, full of iron and heavy stuff, that is the least gravity. Look at a map of volcanoes, you will see that all these volcanoes reside in gravitational holes.

What this shows, is that gravity may not be a function of mass, but rather an electromagnetic function of a plasmatic core. Which may even mean, that the earth underneath the gravity holes, is actually the thinnest portion of the earths crust.

I went looking at this, because I was not content with Niel Adams view that the earth needs to have a gravitational center. Or center of mass. That the earth wouldn't care one damn thing, weather it was like that or not. It is the earths shape, and it's rotation that defines the earths shape ... and it's core, which requires the mantle to be simmetric.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

I can understand why people want to call it "conspiracy". But I would actually advice to refer from using the word. If you go back a bit, you will see that many years ago, you could se "mystery" episodes on TV (I forgot what their name was), where Charlton Heston was the host. He was talking about Giant, and Nephilim, and religious things like that. And he was actually referring to things as "conspiracy" of Science.

I understand that you think it is hard to prove, something that should be so obvious. Yes, it is obvious. But it is for us, to come up with a convincing model. Not just a simple model of the Earth as it grows. But an explanation for most of it, just like a Cand. Phy., That has to defend his thesis. This is a thesis, and it must be defended. The people you are referring to as "conspirateurs", are your peers and just like your Professor at the University, you must convince them of your model. If they aren't convinced, we must go back to the drawing table and continue the work.

Oh, there's been so much scientific work done on Growing Earth and even the models aren't so simple at all. Papers and research have been presented for more than 100 years now. Theoretical physicists who support an expanding model have made a strong case for the problems with current models. Adams and others (like us here) who come from outside of the field have little chance of convincing the "teacher", even if we showed them how their own data supports what we're saying. In the last 100 years since the ideas were first voiced, the most scientific and sound proponents have been cast out as "psuedo-scientists" unwilling to fall in step with the "peer reviewed" system. I wish I had the time and patience to spend a lifetime gaining the skills to speak their language but their technical jargon is so contrived that they can make the day look like night and vice-versa. If all the other professionals who've come from their ranks and used their methods can't convince them, then what chance do we have?

I'm more resolved to use the little time I have in this life talking about it to people who are interested and curious about things they never considered before. When I see someone come back with ideas and questions after having read some text books, then I know that's a good start. They now know something they didn't know before. But it always comes down to our word against the establishment. No matter how you cut it, these guys aren't about to endanger their monolith religious-like protective zeal of their gods. The system is their god. And the system is corrupt. Oh sure, lots of good people there but they don't dare say what they think. They only say what they need in order to get by. And we, this theory and everything it touches on, well, we're the easiest targets. To them we can be the wacko dissidents and they remain clean as snow because they think they have the power.

But the real power, or the greater power, well that's the force of the human mind and heart. When people come together in rejection of such methods and corruption, they can change the way things are. If there was talk all over the world about how wrong science seems to be about some basic things, which by the way have nothing to do with religion, then the bullies on top might start becoming a little less comfortable. The people have the real power and we let the bad guys take it for a while. But that doesn't mean we can't take it back.

I appreciate how you feel. There are a lot of people walking the walk you're suggesting. I'm not comfortable with it. I've seen too much in my life to allow me to be hopeful that they will change their minds if we only tried harder. They won't. Too many good and professional scientists have given their lives to trying and have not budged them one single inch. The system is much more likely to suffocate from its own abuse of responsibility, and from their bloated self-importance that allows them to oppress the discipline of science.

This is big stuff, and it has to be done right ... that our peers are judging us hard, is merely a nutch, a reminder that we must do better. As a young man, I always misunderstood my math Teacher, who was a doctor in Mathematics. I was the only one, he gave remarks of the kind he gave me. The reason was not because he didn't like me, or because he was conspiring to let me fail. It was a remainder, that I could ... and that I should, do better.

I remember one particular case, where we had a proof on an exam. I knew this proof, to 100%. I went over it, on the exam, and returned the exam paper with pride. Knowing I had right. I got a C+, and you know for what? In a series of figures, I forgot a '('. I had this one single mistake on my entire paper ... and got a C+. I was furious, because there were others who were far to wrong, had the math wrong and got a B+. At the time, I was working at the College, and as a worker at the College they could not give me leverage. The teachers point was, that my studies demanded that my work did not interfere, as so I could not afford any mistakes in my work.

Not a conspiracy, but a justified critique. And my point is, so are these arguements ... they are a justified critique, that demand of us, that we do our homework better, and plan our model better. We have to put together the pieces of the puzzle, in a way that we can convince our skeptic peers.

I really commend you for not thinking your teacher might have been unfair. Getting such a grade for such a small mistake, well, I don't know. Especially if others whose math was wrong got better ones. So, alright, it taught you something. But what about the teacher? Did he have it in for you or something? Because something sounds odd about that. It happens a lot in school actually. Maybe that's why I never continued the academic path and preferred the independent arts. I just don't see the point of getting jacked around like that all my life. I have little regard for much of the attitudes in the education complex, really. Still, in light of our situation, I think it's a little different than what happened to you on that paper.

Seeing how much the subject has been advanced in the last 10 years, when it was barely even thought about, I'm pretty hopeful about the course it's taking. More and more people are realizing that there's too much terribly wrong with our social systems. The situation is taking a toll on most everyone. The people are ripe for taking back our world and lives and minds from others who've conspired to suppress us. It's not a violent revolt or such. It's more like an awakening of consciousness. There are a lot of forces who have much to lose from it. Scientists are also at the top of the pyramid.

One thing I'll say for you is that you have a wonderful open mind and a good grasp of how things work. I wouldn't want to see you get aggressive because that never really helps. But I think that when the chips are laid down and it becomes a "no compromise" situation, then you're not likely going to compromise either. Growing Earth compels us to make a stand.

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer

I really commend you for not thinking your teacher might have been unfair. Getting such a grade for such a small mistake, well, I don't know. Especially if others whose math was wrong got better ones. So, alright, it taught you something. But what about the teacher?

For years I hated the guy, and didn't go into mathematics. Went into computers instead, but later I shifted gears and went back to mathematics, and got superior grades all the way through. Just to prove a point to myself.

The teacher was an asshole, and he still is.

One thing I'll say for you is that you have a wonderful open mind and a good grasp of how things work. I wouldn't want to see you get aggressive because that never really helps. But I think that when the chips are laid down and it becomes a "no compromise" situation, then you're not likely going to compromise either. Growing Earth compels us to make a stand.

I think Niel Adams did a fantastic job, in making this visible. What I do think, is that people are spending far too much energy in fighting plate tectonics, instead of using the energy in putting the model up in a working manner.

I can go back to the time, when the Universe was plasma. And I can see how the plasma started to collide and in the collision some plasma was cought in the center, with the electrons running around them like a shell. The start of a gravity bubble, the beginning of a sun. The beginning of all planets. And because the core is plasma, all of them are "circular". The other rocks out there, that have iron cores are misshaped, unlike the earth. They are rocks, and remain misshaped, despite any field around them, or any rotation.

Now, a model with the earth is made and everything in one single paper about how the earth advanced from a single globe, with cold star dust making a crust. Got kick started by the suns magnetic field, making it starting it's own magnetic field that has protected it. How comets provided for the water, and how they also provided for the ice ages. And how the earth is always warming up, between these terms.

Make a working model, and ignore the scientific community. Stop trying to bash them, and stop being on the defence the whole time. A lot of these so called scientists, got their grade from their wealth ... their family bought their grades, when they were young. They never had to face opposition, and never had to prove themselves. You will never convince them ... and all we will ever get for our work, is perhaps recognition after we're dead. Like so many other pioneers in the world, before us,.

reply to post by bjarneorn


That is quite a gift you have there - and is very reminiscent of the way the ancient Gnostics worked as 'seers' peering into the mysteries of the universe.

You might liketo check out thier version of the Earth's origin - they describe it as being condensed from Plasma also, but you should be aware of the difference between what they called epinoia the 'imaginal faculty' being guided by the ego as opposed to being grounded in the proper cosmic order.

www.metahistory.org...

Originally posted by bjarneorn

I think Niel Adams did a fantastic job, in making this visible. What I do think, is that people are spending far too much energy in fighting plate tectonics, instead of using the energy in putting the model up in a working manner

Aye, they should start by showing how the EE model provides a better explanation for Rodina.

Oh, wait, sorry, that's how we falsified the idea several pages back. Oh well, next please?

reply to post by Essan


As far as I can make out the idea of Rodinia is based on very scant evidence and was cooked up in the 70's as a way to explain ancient mountain ranges.

As far as EE theory goes - then it simply never existed!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
As far as EE theory goes - then it simply never existed!

Exactly! Everything for most of Earth's history never existed - because it all began just a few hundred million years ago with Pangea. It's basically just a variant of Young Earth Creationism.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by bjarneorn

I think Niel Adams did a fantastic job, in making this visible. What I do think, is that people are spending far too much energy in fighting plate tectonics, instead of using the energy in putting the model up in a working manner

Aye, they should start by showing how the EE model provides a better explanation for Rodina.

As far as I can see, the Pangea theory is put forward when people can clearly show that America and Africa/Europe have evidently been connected over the atlantic. The pangea theory, then realigns the continents making them fit together with that in mind. Making one super continent, answering how the Atlantic fit them together.

Then, later, people could show that not only did the continents fit over the Atlantic, they also fit over the Pacific. So another continent, Rodina was created, one that also showed how plantlife could have migrated between the two distant lands.

Isn't it a lot simpler, to simply have a smaller globe, without all the anti-gravity drifting about ...

Oh, and by the way ... why isn't Iceland drifting down the river of magma that it is created upon. According to drifting theory, it's just a lava island created on top of lava ... floating on it. Why is it drifting apart, instead of down or up the magma river.

Originally posted by Essan

Aye, they should start by showing how the EE model provides a better explanation for Rodina.

Oh, wait, sorry, that's how we falsified the idea several pages back. Oh well, next please?

Explanation for Rodinia, is actually very simple.

Although Niel Adams is very gifted, he lacks some aspects in his picture. The aspects are the rifts that are on top of continents, of africa, Iceland, America, etc. Earth didn't start to grow, 200 million years ago, it's been growing since it's formation, and since the crust was collected over the plasmatic core.

The ocean bottom, is where this is obvious, and really can't be refuted. But although it appears to be happening at an exponential rate, people have not made account for, that the new crust that is forming at the oceans, is actually pushing and compressing the older crust. The heat, and preassure of the new crust against the continents and beetween these and the rifts at the ocean bottom. Makes this occurr ... you can verify this with any matter, that you have that will "stiffen". The older material will be compressed and the new material will appear to be greater in volume. In other words, there is no "exponential" growing of the earth.

To go back to the time, when the earth was a complete crust, one has to go back to the timing dates of the continental plates. And the breaking of the plates, occurred at many points, including the continents themselves, although these are "deeper" and therefore do not stretch as easily as the ocean floors that are the thinnest points.

None of these supercontinents existed ... it wouldn't make any sence if they did either. Billions of years ago, the earth was one continent. It started breaking up, and at varying rates the crust thinned at points as it grew. Originally life began in all places, as the earth was covered with shallow waters. The electromagnetic plasma core, and the breaking of the core, along with meteorites and comets, that provided the water. Gave birth to life, and gave also birth to mutations of life ... in a Frankenstein style manner.

Different times, in the history of the earth, different species and life forms, had the upper hand. Depending on the situation of magma formation, heat, water and continents. At some points, the water level was much higher than it is today. Because of increased ice formation. Ice ages, did not occurr because the continents got shoved over the north or south pole ... but because an icy external object, will follow the route of any water formation as it will have a watery outer part as it passes in the suns heat. It will therefore fall, just like water will refute from the magnet, and fall on the north or south pole, depending on the electromagnetic direction. Sudden ice, will suddenly freeze areas. And provide additional water to the earth. We already know, that the composition of water on the earth suggest that it is partly from earth, and partly from the outer objects.

How is that for starters.

Originally posted by Essan
Aye, they should start by showing how the EE model provides a better explanation for Rodina.

What you mean is a better explanation for mountain ranges forming at the outer edges of continents that match up in geological time, to the uncorroborated theory of a supercontinent called Rodinia. That's the primary and only reason to even suggest such an possibility as Rodinia.

Within Growing Earth theory, mountains are not formed through an uplift force from within the Earth as suggested by PT. Indeed this notion doesn't very well support the geological features in mountain ranges, that more suggest a compression, or pushing together of the crust, which forces land masses to rise and form mountains. Much in the same way one would push together a smooth dried layer of mud from two opposing edges, causing it to buckle and form "mountain-like" ridges.

As the Earth grows, and its curvature becomes less acute, which results in the hardened crust being compressed together by the force of the ocean floor pushing at it, and forced to buckle at its weakest points, which are the edges. The mid-areas of continents are less affected by this compression because of a more flexible ability to resit it due to the expanse of crust there. That's why we don't see as many mountainous features there.

It's because of this phenomenon that geologists saw similarities in the time periods and mountain ranges at the outer edges of continents, and tried to explain it with the idea that these ranges were once adjacent to each other. Hence the wild idea of continents dancing around on the Earth's surface and forming Rodinia.

Oh, wait, sorry, that's how we falsified the idea several pages back. Oh well, next please?

If your scientific curiosity is defined by falsifying one theory because of the predominance of another, then I'd suggest you have very little understanding of what "falsifying" a theory means. A theory can only be falsified by proving it's components are false through observation and experiment. Not simply because another theory is considered "better". The type of science you're proposing is not based on any scientific principles and is somewhat of a populist blemish on inquisitive and honest science.

Originally posted by Essan
Exactly! Everything for most of Earth's history never existed - because it all began just a few hundred million years ago with Pangea. It's basically just a variant of Young Earth Creationism.

Really now. I don't see how you're making your case any stronger with such sarcasm. I've already answered you about growth being a continuous process since the earliest times the universe's existence. No Growing Earth supporter has ever even suggested that Earth history begins only a few hundred years ago. That is only a period when its hard crust began breaking apart throughout a continuous growing process that preceded it.

There is additionally nothing between Growing Earth and Creationism as you suggest. It is strictly based on observation and deduction.

But your attitude is par for the course in scientific circles, though you don't seem to have the slightest knowledge of the science you say you believe in. Indeed you appear to be more driven by the same blind faith that the Creationists you criticize are.

I expended a lot of effort to answer your previous questions and you haven't responded to any of the points I made. Which makes me wonder if you understand what's being discussed here at all. I know it's easy to just be sarcastic and throw out cliche ideas as if you understand what they mean. But when you become suspect of not really knowing or understanding what you're talking about, then that doesn't help you make any case at all.

And you become an easy target for scorn yourself. Perhaps you should do a little research and try to participate in an actual discussion of the issues instead of just jabbing and insulting.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Although Niel Adams is very gifted, he lacks some aspects in his picture. The aspects are the rifts that are on top of continents, of africa, Iceland, America, etc. Earth didn't start to grow, 200 million years ago, it's been growing since it's formation, and since the crust was collected over the plasmatic core.

The ocean bottom, is where this is obvious, and really can't be refuted. But although it appears to be happening at an exponential rate, people have not made account for, that the new crust that is forming at the oceans, is actually pushing and compressing the older crust. The heat, and preassure of the new crust against the continents and beetween these and the rifts at the ocean bottom. Makes this occurr ... you can verify this with any matter, that you have that will "stiffen". The older material will be compressed and the new material will appear to be greater in volume. In other words, there is no "exponential" growing of the earth.

The idea of questioning our own theories with rigor is a good basis for making a better model. But it must be done with scrutiny and it must all fit into a comprehensive model that works on a sound principle.

Before addressing exponential growth, or increased growth rate in time, I want to respond to an earlier comment you made about most of the ocean water accreting on the Earth from outer space. If you already accept a process within the Earth where plasma or energy is transforming into new atomic matter in the Earth's core, then that means that this process begins with the manufacture of Hydrogen atoms. Considering how we observe the Earth doubling its mass within the last 200 million years, then we must conclude that all its elements are also being manufactured from within it. Hydrogen atoms rising into the outer core and then into the mantle must then by binding into higher count elements that cause an increase of all the elements already there. Because Hydrogen is the lightest of the elements and able to escape first, it rises and binds minimally with others in order to form the water and atmosphere we have. The problem with water or anything else being accreted from outer space in such large quantities is that our observation of the planet's surface doesn't support such a process. Why would it all fall only into the ocean instead of covering the entire planet? Why do we have such dry deserts if such a mass infusion of water is coming in from outer space? Considering how much of the new matter is already appearing in the mid-ocean ridges, then it seems to make more sense that water is also emerging from there and cooling down the magma before it spreads into, and fills the oceans. Accretion does not seem to be such a significant factor in manufacturing water, as is evident in the desert regions.

About increased growth rate. I don't think the explanation of compressed basalt appearing to be smaller than other basalt holds out to such a degree as we're seeing in the ocean floor. The visual difference between hard elements under pressure is somewhat minuscule relative to the difference we're seeing. Such a dense element can only compress so far and remain in a solid state.

On the other hand, our observation of any growth suggests that larger bodies grow faster. This is true of living organisms and can be seen in the growth rate of children, for example, at least until the physical growth process stops. It's also true in vegetation and trees. And it's all such because as a body grows, then it has more mass with which to draw more nutrition causing it to grow faster. That's why larger trees with more roots will grow faster than they did in their first year.

We observe universe expansion as accelerating, which if it's considered as growth instead, then it would corroborate the idea of increased growth rate or exponential growth, as the universe becomes more massive. The same would be true of the Earth, especially looking at the very clear evidence in the ages of the ocean floor. The pressure you speak of does not seem to be able to make such a difference as you suggest. Especially if it means that the Earth somehow defies the increased growth rate we see in everything else, and also in universe expansion.

I'd only suggest remaining open to a more sound comprehensive model and not looking for exceptions within the Earth, even though going up against Neal Adams is a tempting thing to do (I do it myself often), but not at the expense of a logical working model based on what we're observing.

I am not going against Adams, at all.

What I am suggesting, is, that if the earths core is a plasma core. Which I suspect it is. Basically, because the earth is round shaped, and not a mishapen ball. Earths gravity would dictate, earth should be misshapen. Just like so many large rocks floating in space, earth should be equivalent.

However, the earth is showing a lot of unique features. The most dense portitions of its surface are showing less gravity, not more. The most active volcanic areas, ring of fire, Iceland, etc., are showing the greatest gravity. Where the crust is the thinnest.

This actually suggests, that exposion to the core (thinner crust), will increase gravity. Which also suggest, that in the case of earth and other stellar planets, suns. Gravity is a function of the core itself, blocked to lesser value, by granit rock surface. In other words, gravity has more in common with the electrical magnetism we have observed, than we have imagined before. Watching a plasma ball, also suggests that the round formation of these planets, is the function of the plasma core itself. And that the electrical instability on the surface, is because of the plasma core.

However I suggest, we look at history as well. Take a look at the mammuts in siberia. They froze while eating. There is only one explanation to this in my mind, and that is a comet style object splashing into the earth, with an instead addition of frozen matter. I also suggest, that such an object would only fall on the south or north pole. And NEVER, anywhere else. So, additional water, would gradually be added to the earths oceans, through melting. Compisition of water, suggests that it is both native and extra terrestrial. I suggest, that we have frozen north and south poles, not because of native cooling effect, but more because of the extra stellar objects.

Also, when I read about plasma. Which is what is being bombarded towards earth by our sun. It is a matter, that has free electrons floating, that can be taken from the plasma by means of magnetism. Just like the earths. When such a matter, is releaved of its electron, it becomes normal gas that is attracted by earths gravity.

The earth inside it, has posits of Helium, and Oxygen. NORAD being a posit of Oxygen, but such posits within the earth do suggest that gas is being created within the earth, from the heat. Weather we consider the earth being a purifier of elements, with its heat. Or weather we think that the core is a source, that is creating such elements. We have to consider the fact, that elements are somehow created from plasma, and turned into the elements we know. They say our sun, has too little heat to produce helium, yet we observed helium by watching our sun.

What I am suggesting, is, that if the earths core is a plasma core. Which I suspect it is. Basically, because the earth is round shaped, and not a mishapen ball. Earths gravity would dictate, earth should be misshapen. Just like so many large rocks floating in space, earth should be equivalent.

Here is a little thought experiment for you - imagine you were a giant and gently poked your finger at an earth the size of a football.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Here is a little thought experiment for you - imagine you were a giant and gently poked your finger at an earth the size of a football.

I am not a Giant, I am a small vasp that is swarming with my huge swarm, around the heads of humans. They are round shaped, and we are sticking them to put our small eggs inside.

Individually we make no difference, but in a swarm like ours ... we can infect entire pestilences.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


I understand your reference, that the Sun is a giant compared to earth. And that a small eruption on the sun, is the size of jupiter.