Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well you're half right.
They both are theories.
Hopefully this thread will have an actively open minded discussion.
I hope so as well.
And yes hey both are theories but then again very few thing are not when it come to planets, moons, our sun and how they formed.
One of the reasons the expanding Earth theory gets dismissed is because it does not makes sense on it's own alone with other incorrect theories.
For the expanding theory to make ore sense we would have to accept the Pangaea theory to be incorrect right? Obviously!
What is also obvious is that if we assume the expanding Earth theory to be correct not only does the Pangaea theory have to be incorrect but so to
other theories of how planets and moons, the role of our sun and how our solar system works have to be incorrect or at least a little tweaking is
needed for the theory to make much more sense just like the flat Earth theory needed other theories like the sun rotating around the Earth for the
theory of we are the shiznit to be correct.
Ah but those authoritative religious establishments sure dreaded and even fought against such change much like our Scientific God particle thumping
new authoritative theosophic institutions fights against the theory of an expanding Earth.
So lets think a bit what do we know yet over look about the sun, moons and planets and how can further inspection of what we know help the theory of
an expanding Earth.
Well some obvious tings that come to my mind is the Earth is slowly moving away from the sun so i'm sure it has been for a long, long, long time.
Our moon is slowly moving away from Earth but why is it so close to Earth if it is moving away?
The Sun is known for shooting stuff out in huge amounts like it's spitting a wad of paper through a straw.
These are just tree well known things that we simply pay no attention to or how they could impact curent theory and show it's incorrectness.
Here's a theory and lets see if it makes sense and possibly any more sense that the current ones today fed to us by the grand church of science.
Lets say the sun spits out planets, these planets due to the huge gravitational pull of the sun are really small to start out and are very close to
the sun in orbit. lets say these small dense planets are slowly pushed by the force of the sun very slowly over million and millions of years due to
it's orbit (like a sail boat in the wind). As they move away from the sun and their orbit expanse the density drops and the planet grows in size, plus
the stuff dumped on it from the sun and comets and such.
Lets say that moon like the one with Earth always sticks to any planet the moves into Earths current position like a conveyor belt. It does this by
falling into orbit with lets say Venus once it moves away from Earth orbit far away enough to becomes the moon of Venus that is now in Earth position
while earth is now where mars is and mars either had what it took to become a gas giant or just part of the asteroid belt.
But where id the moon come from? Well if the sun can spit out planets who it to say that those huge storms on gas giants cant hurl moons into space?
and do this until they spit out so many moons that their gasiness kind of deflates and they become far off frozen dead planets exceeding the mass
expansion of the lack of the suns gravitational pull.
But why are planets all different sizes? should not mars be bigger than Earth? Not if each spit wad from the sun is chewed and torn from the paper in
Now I ask, why would what I have just said be wrong? and if I am wrong where will the earth and moon be in a billion years?
Finally I ask, does not the expanding earth theory work much better with the theory I have presented? Or does the theory of Pangaea hold more water
with conventional scientific theory? Think about it.
edit on 12-9-2012 by TucoTheRat because: (no reason given)