Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

There are also lots of other issues to go along with an expanding Earth, such as, we would loose our atmosphere at an increasing rate as the density of the Earth decreases. Decreasing density and increasing size would produce less surface gravity to hold the atmosphere. Our atmosphere would thus be exponentially thinning. We would see this quite significantly in the upper atmosphere which would change how satellites orbit

Surface gravity during those early periods would also have had to been significantly higher, higher density, and smaller radius.

The model is just not consistent with observation at a large scale.

Before I go any further I would like to bring to everyone's attention the following. Gravity, just like all the other subjects, is just a theory. No one really understands the mechanics of gravity. We "assume" therefor we know. Well, we know nothing!

Nov,29 2012

"Gravity Doesn't Exist" --Is this Fundamental Phenomenon of the Universe an Illusion?

Could both gravity and the Big Bang be an illusion? In January 2010, Erik Verlinde, professor of Theoretical Physics and world-renowned string theorist, caused a worldwide stir with the publication of On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, in which he challenged commonly held perceptions on gravity, going so far as to state ‘for me gravity doesn’t exist’. If he is proved correct, the consequences for our understanding of the universe and its origins in a Big Bang will be far-reaching.

To Verlinde, gravity is similar. It’s something that only appears when you put many things together at a microscopic scale and then you suddenly see that certain equations arise. "As scientists," he observes, "we first want to understand nature and our universe. In doing so, we have observed things that are deeply puzzling, such as phenomena related to dark matter. We see things happening that we don’t understand. There must be more matter out there that we don’t see. There’s also something called ‘dark energy’. And then there’s the whole puzzle of the beginning of the universe. We now have what is called the ‘Big Bang’ theory.

"We think we understand gravity in most situations," he says "but when we look at galaxies and, on much larger scales, at galaxy clusters, we see things happening that we don’t understand using our familiar equations, like Newton’s equation of gravity or even Einstein’s gravity. So we have to assume there’s this mysterious form of matter, which we call dark matter, which we cannot see. Now dark energy is even weirder, in the sense that we don’t even know what it consists of. It’s something we can put in our equations to make things work, but there’s really a big puzzle to be solved in terms of why it’s there and what it’s made of. At present, we have not really found the right equations to describe it. There’s clearly progress to be made in terms of finding a better theory of gravity, and understanding what’s happening in our universe."

www.dailygalaxy.com...

If anyone has the time it is a read well worth reading.

Gravity doesn't exist? Okay then, maybe he is right, maybe the gravity we know, we don't. Maybe we have it backwards? At least this Scientist was honest in his paper. He admitted up front, we don't know jack. So now we have to start all over again at square one.

Newton threw an apple in the air and assumed it was pulled back to earth. What if..

I'm no Theoretical physicist, but it was suggested to me in the past that the Van Allen radiation belts played a great role in gravity. Maybe, they produce that dark matter, or dark energy Mr Erik Verlinde alluded to in the above article. Maybe things are not pulled back to earth, but are pushed back. How Would Newton know, one way, or the other? Maybe we have magnetize and capillary attraction confused as well?

So lets say for the sake of argument, that on our, outer side of the crust, we have the van allen belts creating dark energy, pushing against the crust. And on the inside you have the central point of energy, or what ever you care to call it, radiating this dark energy out against the inner surface, both equally distanced, both balanced in force. Until that balance is disrupted by more weight than can be accommodated.

So, you want to call it anti matter, dark matter, dark energy, really doesn't matter. It either works and is there, or it doesn't. All I really know for certain is that the age of the sea beds indicates expansion, on a global scale. And all Newton knew was he threw a apple in the air, and it came back to him.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Please educate yourself on the meaning of the word "theory" in science. It is certainly not what you think it is.

And if you don't believe in gravity, feel free to jump from a high cliff and see how that works out for you.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Please educate yourself on the meaning of the word "theory" in science. It is certainly not what you think it is.

And if you don't believe in gravity, feel free to jump from a high cliff and see how that works out for you.

Its rather odd, sad, and funny at the same time, that you get a star for your sarcasm. Does it add to the thread?

But it does show how easily things can be taken out of context.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I'm no Theoretical physicist, but it was suggested to me in the past that the Van Allen radiation belts played a great role in gravity. Maybe, they produce that dark matter, or dark energy Mr Erik Verlinde alluded to in the above article. Maybe things are not pulled back to earth, but are pushed back. How Would Newton know, one way, or the other?

You're making stuff up with no evidence to support it. You may as well postulate that magic pixies did it because that would have the same evidence. There are no observations of either dark matter or dark energy in our own solar system so you're only embarrassing yourself by trying to use those to explain what's going in in our solar system. Newton's math still works almost perfectly to explain what we observe in our own solar system including our ability to land a spacecraft on mars many millions of kilometers away that would certainly not be successful if our gravity calculations were off by even a small amount. The explanation of the precession of Mercury required a tweak to Newton's math from Einstein's theory, but otherwise Newton's math still works well even today in our solar system to explain other gravitational observations.

As for your article about other galaxies, I hope you realize that the further away something is the harder it is to see. If there was another planet like Jupiter in our own Oort cloud, we might not even be able to see it and it's right on our front doorstep in cosmological terms, within 3 light years from us. If we can't even see that reliably, how do you expect to have reliable observations of galaxies that are millions or billions of light years away? Of course we can't see such things, but that doesn't give you the license to make up stuff about the Van Allen belt. We think there are other things going on too in the "halos" of galaxies based on observations which dark matter alludes to, but again you can't apply that to our solar system as we aren't in the Galactic halo, and attempts to observe dark matter in our own solar system haven't revealed any in our solar system so far. Dark energy is only observed at distances much larger than 30 million light years away and while we don't fully understand it, we have enough measurements to say if there's any effect of it in our solar system it's too small to measure.

So the bottom line is, yes there are some things we don't understand about the universe, but no that doesn't mean we can make up any BS to support our ideas. Anything we propose still has to be consistent with observations or it's not science. You're proposing things inconsistent with observations because you're obviously unfamiliar with observations and this is not science.

By the way the daily galaxy often posts complete rubbish stories so it's not a reliable source. If it's suggesting that Newton's and Einstein's maths don't explain our gravitational observations in our own solar system, then the article is rubbish, and it wouldn't be the first time that source has published rubbish. I can post rubbish sources too, doesn't make them true. Here's one for you that's complete BS:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist
- Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
- He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round...

That source is as unreliable as the Daily Galaxy. Quantum physics has not proven that there is an afterlife, the article is complete rubbish.

Find better sources than DailyMail or DailyGalaxy if you want to be taken seriously. Occasionally they publish true articles but they aren't consistent and there's garbage mixed in.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No. Sorry, but no. The expanding Earth theory isn't new and was exploded years ago. As for your take on it, the earliest trees (as we would know them) were Wattieza trees, which flourished in the Middle Devonian period (C 385 million years ago).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As you say, thinking outside the box etc is fine, but people need a good knowledge of where and what the box is if they want to expand it...

To put my spin on it, if interactions where occurring in the van allan belt at such high energy to create dark matter... the measurement of dark matter would be a done deal, but exactly as you say Arbitrageur, the detector of dark matter has thus far been not possible directly.

For consistency All Seeing Eye, if the Van Allan belt was to produce dark matter/dark energy and in some way produce gravity... us down on Earth wouldn't notice, if the shell is spherical. There would be no net pull of gravity down to the centre. So again this is one of those postulates that can be already (based on very well established observation) can be ruled out... so our 2nd - 3rd or 4th order postulates are useless and yes we might as well just say pixies make gravity

a reply to: Arbitrageur

By the way the daily galaxy often posts complete rubbish stories so it's not a reliable source. If it's suggesting that Newton's and Einstein's maths don't explain our gravitational observations in our own solar system, then the article is rubbish, and it wouldn't be the first time that source has published rubbish.

When someone challenges the religion of science, some people can get so so, testy .

Here is is from the Horses mouth.



And here is a link to the original paper. You guys make such a big deal about peer reviewed papers, and you wont give them one minute to consider...... On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton

This guy, I like. In fact, I'm going to admire him, oh, not for his science, it could be wrong, or misinterpreted, but because he isn't a gate keeper, and he is honest

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

None of your links work.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

None of your links work.

I haven't laughed that hard in years.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

None of your links work.

I haven't laughed that hard in years.

Your amusement is nothing next to mine.

the notion of an 'expanding Earth' would be more in line with a 'pressure cooker' model rather than some exotic theory where we have a 'compressed' Planet that is gradually increasing in size--- that notion is like putting lipstick-on-a-pig or describing a Fabrege' Egg when a Deviled Egg is the reality


the Earth Core(s), inner & outer are in a frenzied condition which is causing the Earths' Mantle layers of molton rock to heat up excessively and cause outgassing & stresses on all the underground pockets and strata layers with water/gasses/ oils/ tars to rise to the surface or expand the confines of their enclosed spaces.... nothing more than that

Earth is not going to grow into larger diameter sphere of rock & water...thats' a fantasy to sell a dreamland adventure

originally posted by: St Udio
the notion of an 'expanding Earth' would be more in line with a 'pressure cooker' model rather than some exotic theory where we have a 'compressed' Planet that is gradually increasing in size--- that notion is like putting lipstick-on-a-pig or describing a Fabrege' Egg when a Deviled Egg is the reality


the Earth Core(s), inner & outer are in a frenzied condition which is causing the Earths' Mantle layers of molton rock to heat up excessively and cause outgassing & stresses on all the underground pockets and strata layers with water/gasses/ oils/ tars to rise to the surface or expand the confines of their enclosed spaces.... nothing more than that

Earth is not going to grow into larger diameter sphere of rock & water...thats' a fantasy to sell a dreamland adventure

Thank you for your input, and opinion.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

. As for your take on it, the earliest trees (as we would know them) were Wattieza trees, which flourished in the Middle Devonian period (C 385 million years ago).

That is really really odd. I had a neighbor who worked in a coal mine and found a chunk of one of those trees. He gave it to me, and I gave it to my brother in law.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

. As for your take on it, the earliest trees (as we would know them) were Wattieza trees, which flourished in the Middle Devonian period (C 385 million years ago).

That is really really odd. I had a neighbor who worked in a coal mine and found a chunk of one of those trees. He gave it to me, and I gave it to my brother in law.

Before trees there were ferns.
EDIT: I did say that the earliest trees as we would know them were the Wattieza trees. I also need to point out that on your original post you claimed that there were mountains on both sides of the USA because of the pressure of water (or so I seem to remember). The Appalachians are far older than the Rockies and far far older than parts of the Cascades.

a reply to: ErosA433

For consistency All Seeing Eye, if the Van Allan belt was to produce dark matter/dark energy and in some way produce gravity... us down on Earth wouldn't notice, if the shell is spherical. There would be no net pull of gravity down to the centre. So again this is one of those postulates that can be already (based on very well established observation) can be ruled out... so our 2nd - 3rd or 4th order postulates are useless and yes we might as well just say pixies make gravity

Thank you for this contribution.

Van Allen radiation belts (cross section) A radiation belt is a layer of energetic charged particles that is held in place around a magnetized planet, such as the Earth, by the planet's magnetic field.

If, this is the nature of the belt, it must radiate something. I haven't had much time to ponder the possibilities that could be involved.

Smaller planet, larger life forms, larger planet, smaller life forms. Magnetized Planet expanding closer to the Belt? Non magnetized satellites floating in the air.



Verlinde did mention in his paper about how quantum strings were influenced by UV and IR. I wonder if, somehow, light from the sun passes through the belt to form some sort of prism effect, or maybe even some type of energy transformation that also needs magnetism as a mechanism.. Converting something, photons, into nothing, dark energy.

Forgive me, the above is just mental notes of some mind toys I'm playing with.

At this stage, for my own feelings about this is,nothing is off the table. Does anyone know if photons are influenced by strong magnetic fields? And yes, down here on earth,we probably would never notice it. Up, or Down. Well, that is, if we had a biology that was tuned to receive it.

There is only one report I know of that puts into question weather gravity pushes down, or pulls down, and that is the Tamarak geodetic servery of the late 1800s and 1901.

Highly shortened story, two plumb lines were dropped down two mine shafts a mile deep. Measurements were recorded and it was found that the distance between the plumbs at the bottom were 1/10 of a foot further apart, which would indicate the center of gravity was 4000 miles up in the sky. In fact, right in the middle of the Van Allen radiation belt. Go figure.

And of course our beloved Religion of Science would not hear of it. And as you might have guessed the findings were torn to shreds by the feeding frenzy of the priests, err, scientists. One very notable Scientists, the honorable Donald E. Simanek. Now, I'm not in a position to question his logic or rational for his conclusions, but I do question his attacking Ray Palmer's reputation. Mr Simanek does a fine job of researching the story and even supplies additional information to the original. Mr Palmer, was just the messenger.

Decide for yourselves. And before you go bashing sites, this is from the Michigan Technological University.

Original story PLUMBING OF THE TAMARACK SHAFTS

And this is Mr Simanek's Review of Ray Palmer's version. The Tamarack Mines Mystery

And, I already know,"The links Don't Work".

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

. As for your take on it, the earliest trees (as we would know them) were Wattieza trees, which flourished in the Middle Devonian period (C 385 million years ago).

That is really really odd. I had a neighbor who worked in a coal mine and found a chunk of one of those trees. He gave it to me, and I gave it to my brother in law.

Before trees there were ferns.
EDIT: I did say that the earliest trees as we would know them were the Wattieza trees. I also need to point out that on your original post you claimed that there were mountains on both sides of the USA because of the pressure of water (or so I seem to remember). The Appalachians are far older than the Rockies and far far older than parts of the Cascades.

Yes, that is true, the Appalachians Mountains are probably closer to 300 million years old.

I live on the mountains and their is some very odd crustal movements in my location. You can actually see where the outer crust(or even inner) has moved as if it was a completely different event. Its absolutely inspiring to see chunks of bed rock, and the sedimentation/ accreditation lines, sitting at 45% angles. Actually some of the displays are breath taking to say the least.

I suspect the problem with dating the Range has to do with multiple events occurring in the past. And, they are full of coal which could also help date the localized age.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Here is is from the Horses mouth.

So he's trying to use string theory to bridge the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics or something like that, people have been trying to do that for decades, and maybe someday he or someone else will succeed. However he's facing the same situation Einstein did when Einstein revamped the theory of gravity, he had to make sure that Newton's math holds true in the limiting case because Newton's math still matches observations in our solar system.

So, any new theory will also need to match Newton's math in observations of our solar system, because Newton's math matches observation except for Mercury's precession, which Einstein's theory explained, but it still simplifies to Newton's math in most observations of our solar system and that's why both models work. No new theory is going to change the fact that Newton's math matches observations in our solar system. Verlinde is not suggesting anything that gives any credibility to any of your proposals about the Van Allen belt, antigravity, or expanding Earth. He's well aware that his model will have to match observations in our solar system which match Newton's math.

So the fact that you're posting this video as if this helps your arguments in any way shows a huge gap in your comprehension. Maybe you don't understand what he's saying.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I thought it was because the Earth was spinning at many miles an hour and 70+% water.... like a clay pot being spun.... but that is too simple of a description.

originally posted by: Gyo01
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
I thought it was because the Earth was spinning at many miles an hour and 70+% water.... like a clay pot being spun.... but that is too simple of a description.

The Earth isn't 70+% water, it's not even one percent water. It's not even one tenth of one percent water, it's only half of that:

Earth's water

Although water covers 70 percent of the Earth's surface, water is actually a rare substance that represents just 0.05 percent of the Earth's total mass.

The Earth does have a slight bulge at the equator because of the spin, and as a result we are at a greater distance from Earth's center at the equator and weigh maybe 0.2% less than we would at the poles. Due to the centrifugal force we would weigh another 0.3% less at the equator, so maybe 0.5% less at the equator overall. But since the spin is fairly constant (it's slowing down very gradually), so is the spin related bulge. So if the spin slowing down is having any effect, it would be to make the Earth slightly smaller at the equator, but this is negligible for most purposes because it takes a very long time for the Earth's change in rotation to become noticeable, and it's also affected by other things like Earthquakes so the rate of change is a little erratic because of those.

None of that suggests the Earth is expanding.