Ancient Geo-Engineering is expanding the Earth

Another troubling area is why our atmospheric oxygen content is only 20.95%, and in ancient times was as high as 35%. What happened?

As I suggested above there must have been a global flood of immense proportions in our ancient past which initiated the global expansion. I suggest that Dinosaurs were all but destroyed during this event, drowned to be exact. But something else would have occurred as well. All oxygen producing vegetation would have been destroyed as well. The time before the flood, 35%, the time after, 21%. And since most of our surface area was now water, 35% content could not be re-achieved.

Greater gravity induced by a larger planet and less land mass to supply less oxygen. Life grew smaller.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Another troubling area is why our atmospheric oxygen content is only 20.95%, and in ancient times was as high as 35%. What happened?

Combustion and rust.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You seem to have a problem with 35% oxygen content? Straight from the U.S. Geological Survey web site, before 65 million years, 35%.

Air Bubbles, Amber, and Dinosaurs minerals.cr.usgs.gov...

The recent extraction by scientists, of ancient DNA from organisms entombed in amber much like in the science-fiction novel and movie, Jurassic Park is an example of why scientists are intensely interested in amber. Minute bubbles of ancient air trapped by successive flows of tree resin during the life of the tree are preserved in the amber. Analyses of the gases in these bubbles show that the earth s atmosphere, 67 million years ago, contained nearly 35 percent oxygen compared to present levels of 21 percent. Results are based upon more than 300 analyses by USGS scientists of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and recent-age amber from 16 world sites.* The oldest amber in this study is about 130 million years old.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I have no problem with it at all - although I am not surprised you completely misunderstood my post.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
I understood you comment, I just had to throw you a curve ball, get the gray matter juice movin.

Im just wondering why you never seem to address the material. What goes on in Aloysius the Gauls mind? Do you have any independent ideas from Main Stream Science? Do you believe everything they say as gospel, or did you ever have "How do they know that", moment.

Perhaps this is why the moon rang like a bell when something hits it. If it was hollow and the Moon was brought here and then the water it contained was emptied out onto the Earth perhaps that was the delivery system for the water.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Another troubling area is why our atmospheric oxygen content is only 20.95%, and in ancient times was as high as 35%.

Why is it troubling?

In more ancient times it was closer to 0%

It was the rise of stromatolites in the Cambrian that initially poisoned the atmosphere with deadly oxygen. It peaked in the Carboniferous but has dropped to less dangerous levels since and has been fairly stable for the past few tens of millions of years.

Originally posted by endats01
Perhaps this is why the moon rang like a bell when something hits it. If it was hollow and the Moon was brought here and then the water it contained was emptied out onto the Earth perhaps that was the delivery system for the water.

It now appears that is more likely than not. I just found this article from the National Geographic site that states there is enough water in the interior of the moon to cover its complete surface by a meter.

"If we could take all the water which is locked up in the moon's interior, it would make a one-meter-deep [one-yard-deep] ocean covering its entire surface," said lead study author Francis McCubbin, a geologist with the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Interesting. I would like to see more on this. Do you have any other sources? I have found nothing as yet for this story. I hope to find some corroboration. Thanks for inputting this to the thread.

Originally posted by endats01
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

Interesting. I would like to see more on this. Do you have any other sources? I have found nothing as yet for this story. I hope to find some corroboration. Thanks for inputting this to the thread.

I cant really say I believe it is possible for a hollow moon to bring water to this planet, but I can say I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility. How could it do this, what might the mechanics of it looked like? After all we do have a party admitting to it in some old book, the bible. even went as far to say he would never do it again. Anyways....

I have been studying the area between South America and Antarctica for a few years now. This area looks as if, well, something was drug through it, something big. So big in fact it looks as if it reshaped the land mass. What could have done this?



To the right where the land appears to be the last point of contact, is a round indentation. The diameter of this indention is between 300 to 350 miles. Im certain if any geologists would care to examine this area, they would find that the materials in that indentation would match up perfectly with the materials on the southern tip of South America, and or the Northern tip of Antarctica.

If it were the moon that caused this trail, of course being piloted intelligently, then obviously, the moon would also have some type of disruption on its surface that would indicate it had been in contact with another object. Well guess what? The Moon has such marks on its surface, at least 5.



The one dead center just happens to be about 310 miles in diameter. If the moon did in fact bring the water to this planet, then it did it while in contact with the earth. Maybe more than once, and maybe leaving marks on its surface from where ever it picked up the water. I would have to suggest the large darker rings are contact points.

But I don't know if I believe all of that,and before anyone starts rambling on about this is just pure Lunacy, I agree

Something else of interest about this "Drag Mark". It does appear to be in a straight line when considering the radius, and rotation of earth. In this picture I have included the grid lines to show its movement.



There is a oddity here, other than a moon sized object coming into contact with the earth. It shows the direction of rotation of the earth when the event occurred. The Earth, was rotating in the opposite direction of today. When this occurred, the Sun Rose in the West.

I did a cursory search for information concerning this, and this came up.

Islam is the only religion that prophesies that the sun will rise from the West, instead of from rising from the East, in the the End Times, before Day of Judgement. Both the Quran and the Hadith affirm that this phenomenon will take place. The occurrence of this phenomenon is considered in Islam as one of the major signs that indicate the Day of Judgement is close.

www.discoveringislam.org...

I don't know about the end times but it does appear it happened at least once in the past, a reversal of rotation. The question is, could the moon be used as a "Break" to slow down our rotation, and reverse it?

From what I have seen so far, while looking into this, (after a day of knowing about the theory) IF there was such an event, I would place it somewhere around 200 million years ago to about 70 million years ago. It would have been a relatively rapid event, many EE advocates claim it is an ongoing thing for billions of years and still is, but I don’t, I’d place it in that given era.

I think that because Pangaea/super continent was roughly that time 200m ago, and suggestions that the ocean floor is aged between those two points. I’d say such a reaction would had to of released hydrogen(perhaps some other gases) over this period, and that hydrogen into an oxygenated atmosphere, via lightening and perhaps volcanic activity, would have created a constant pour of water into the valleys that were opening up between the continents.

Before this event there would had to of been water but I would presume it was shallows and much less abundant, likely the reason life was pushed onto land in the first place, the seas were teeming with life to overflow.

One EE advocate told me that the Earth is still growing and gave numbers like “the thickness of a human hair per year” and went on to say that people do not find this significant, but it is over time. I basically said if this were true it wouldn’t have been possible for the Earth to expand at that rate from 200 million years ago to its current size, you would only be looking at 12miles of growth (or something along those lines) So under my theory of “the rapid event” it stabilised around the size it is 70 million years ago and maybe has a residual growth rate carrying over til now.

Someone, who is not an EE advocate, suggested to me that human physiology seems to be suited for a different gravity. Now under this theory I have given, the mass of the Earth hasn’t changed, but all this hydrogen, and other gases, was mass at the centre, a greater density below, a greater pull, but as it spilled to our level the centre mass reduced. So this lessening of G-force would have been advantageous to Dinosaurs, and they didn’t go extinct until around the time the event concluded at 70m, which raises more questions like if the two events are linked somehow(?).

As for the Reaction itself that would had to of taken place for such an event, remember you have opposing physics here; you have the expansion of the planet, but at the same time the inner planet is losing massive amounts of matter/gas into the atmosphere. You see the conundrum? At a time physics should be asking for more matter into the core to account for the expansion, in fact it is losing matter out of the core, so riddle me that, what kind of chemical reaction could do that?

I don’t know much but I believe the fusion on the sun is caused from the gravity and pressure pushing atoms so close together that they give off massive amounts of energy, their electrons are colliding etc. This would mean that you could get more atoms into a smaller area, a fusion compression of matter, so an idea I am entertaining is that the planets were basically birthed from our star as compressed fusion clumps, but after a time being free of that powerful gravity, and perhaps something to do with cooling or de-fusion, the result is this sudden expansion. So basically Earth had a fusion core up until 200 million years ago, at which point it burned out, and now it is cooling.

Now I am just basically humouring here, but if there were any science behind it I think it would look like this. It would be a general premise, but obviously Earth has a tectonic situation going on now, with perhaps a residual growth, but is otherwise stable.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


See my post, to account for reduction in oxygen

reply to post by Raytrek


There are some tricky things about my theory here; namely that it seems dinosaurs, for a time, required a lesser gravity than the Earth surface currently has. This may be explainable by what we know about supernova.

A supernova is where the fusion reaction of a star ends, you get this massive expansion of matter from fusion conditions to the regular matter state, and after this you see a contraction back to the relatively stable White Dwarf stage.

With my fusion core Earth theory, it would have been an event that lasted some 120-130 million years between 200-70 million years ago; the fusion "death" would have been the expansion of the solid/terrestrial Earth but also a massive "breathing out" of gas from the core, a relatively short process on the cosmic scale but it was over a long time in human terms, as per the times I have provided.

I will go out on a limb and suggest that the core actually "breathed out" much more than is currently of our atmosphere, this would have created conditions of high atmospheric pressure, yet because there is much less mass at the core, you get less gravity as a result. At the apex of this process, atmospheric pressure would have been significantly higher and gravity significantly lower, and it would have been over a long enough period for dinosaurs to evolve to their greatest sizes.

But then sure enough, the core "breathed" back in, I'm not sure how much but it basically settled the Earth to its current situation, give or take.

So this is additional theory in an attempt to explain the Dinosaur contradiction, where these animals were naturally too big to feasibly survive under the current gravity Earth has.

reply to post by Raytrek


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Raytrek


It's not a theory - it is a plot for a science fiction story

reply to post by Raytrek

Raytrek, thank you for taking the time to consider what I have proposed, and responding honestly.

Just recently main stream scientists are only now starting to question their own theory of planet formation

Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There Gathering dust just doesn't seem to get it any longer to form a planet. Really? lol

Your idea of a "Fusion" event at the center of the planet formation is, at least in my mind, right on track.

Giving scientists a break

We human beings by our very nature are extremely limited in the ability to comprehend information, and process it. Its not our faults really, we were born that way. Scientists are just as prone to the "herd mentality" as all the rest of us. The Shepard tells us to go this way or that with our thinking, and we generally obey. With some exceptions like Nicola Tesla and even Albert Einstein, who decided not to stay in the box.

Fusion, at the core

You see the conundrum? At a time physics should be asking for more matter into the core to account for the expansion, in fact it is losing matter out of the core, so riddle me that, what kind of chemical reaction could do that?

Yes, quite a riddle, unless you consider other possibilities, and jump outside the proverbial scientific box.

It is now established the earth has grown from prehistoric times. Where does the extra matter come from. Well, some of those boxed scientists will tell you "space dust" has collected on the surface and that accounts for the expansion. Really? If that's true, where is all the miles of dust hiding? i still have bed rock showing on my property....

Scientists have been scouring the heavens looking for one thing, when it all gets boiled down. They look for a factory that spews out Suns, planets, dust, etc, etc, etc. They try to come to terms with the vastness of the vacuum of deep space. Where did it all start? I suggest, it all started right below their feet, with your "Fusion" theory, but modified.

Space, deep space, has a characteristic that is common, its a vacuum. Vacuums draws things into itself. Obviously then that when the Sun was formed, and our planet, was formed in a perfect vacuum. Gravity and molecular attraction did not even exist at that point.

Why is it absolutely normal for a scientist to believe in black holes, where all matter is drawn into, and not the reverse? Space is a vacuum, it draws into itself, it does not blow things into a black closet or hole. Why not "White Holes", where things are blown into the vacuum? Fusion events?

There is no factory.......

To be continued:

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


There is a natural line between science and imagination, but there is no such line through the mind, that is both the beauty and the danger, we can embrace the mind in its function or sanitise it and put it in a box

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Thanks, I just had fun with it, to see where my imagination could take me, science obviously has its practical value but imagination is the real frontier

Raytrek
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

Thanks, I just had fun with it, to see where my imagination could take me, science obviously has its practical value but imagination is the real frontier

Why not have some fun on our never ending journey to the truth

I imagine ,imagination can be used as a tool, to see, the UN-seeable side of reality.