Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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.

You have discussed this with him? I would assume this be the case, if your going to speak for him, correct?

Verlinde is not suggesting anything that gives any credibility to any of your proposals about the Van Allen belt, antigravity, or expanding Earth.

You are correct. I am not using any of his materials to prove anything. The only thing I pointed out is his view point that "Gravity", as a theory, should be reconstructed. Though, I am only paraphrasing his opinion here. I believe his exact words were

There’s clearly progress to be made in terms of finding a better theory of gravity, and understanding what’s happening in our universe."

In the simplest terms, I agree with this statement, and make no attempt at using his string theory to prove or disprove, anything.

So, any new theory will also need to match Newton's math in observations of our solar system

I find this statement interesting. I do know that in order to correct a faulty paradigm, one must exit that paradigm, in order to see its fault. And in this case, Mr Verlinde stated that this paradigm, gravity, needs to be overhauled. Did Mr Verlinde share this sentiment with you? Or do you feel it is just "Common Knowledge" that the new theory, paradigm, must follow Newtonian Theory. I'm curious as to your thoughts.

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.

You are correct on both statements. I am refining my comprehension by the day, hour and minutes. My level of comprehension goes up and down as new and relevant information appears, and wanes when it becomes less than logical, like the waves hitting a shore. I can go from Astrophysicist, to a box of rocks in a heart beat. Please don't misunderstand me, Some subjects are placed on the shelve until a more suitable time becomes available in order to dissect it. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with anything. But like cattle be lead through a gate, I will decide, if and when it will be processed. Not someone with a cattle prod.

In as far as understanding what Mr Verlinde is "saying", well, no, I don't. I don't speak Dutch.......... I have already addressed the rational behind positing the video(I guess your links finally worked)

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.

Thank you for your observation, and input. The Expanding Earth theory Is an alternative theory as to the physical make up of Planet Earth. I suppose I should have warned folks in the original thread. Main Stream Academia firmly rejects the observations and, implications, associated with the theory. So as you might imagine, there will be a great deal of discourse and debate involved over the subject matter.

You are encouraged to consider both sides of the debate and come to your own conclusions on any points that are made. After all, Science, belongs to all of us, not just a select few.

Again, Welcome aboard. Feel free, to rock the boat

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

must follow Newtonian Theory.

Please explain your understanding of Newtonian theory regarding gravity.

As far as I know all he did was provide a mathematical construct which describes (and predicts) the effects of gravity. A construct, which as pointed out, works very very well within some constraints on mass. Well enough to send a spacecraft on a grand tour of the solar system. Any "new" gravity would have to demonstrate the same ability, as a beginning.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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.

More like 480 million years, having been formed when the Iapetus oceanic plate was pushed under the North American craton, resulting in subduction, volcanoes and thrust faulting. There are no problems dating the Appalachians. And you are wrong to say that earthquakes only happen on the edges of plate boundaries. I would have to point to New Madrid and other places.

a reply to: PhageSorry for getting back to you so late. Sleep demanded my attention.

As far as I know all he did was provide a mathematical construct which describes (and predicts) the effects of gravity.

While stumbling around trying to wake up and find a answer to your first question I inadvertently discovered some info on Newton that demands further research.

Im sure you would agree. Any review of a book, must also contain a review of the author. Logical?

In 1727, just weeks before his death, Isaac Newton burned volumes of his own manuscripts. What did those papers contain? After spending much of his life studying the ancient art of alchemy, the codes of the bible, and trying to predict the apocalypse, did he discover something the world was not prepared to face? Modern psychiatrists suggest that this act, along with other strange behaviors, was caused by a sickness that not only made him paranoid and obsessive, but also explained his genius.

www.smithsonianchannel.com...

Red flags go up when the "Modern Psychiatrists" are called in to do a "cleaning".

Any "new" gravity would have to demonstrate the same ability, as a beginning.

It wouldn't be hard to imagine that Newton never once imagined he was going to be the father of space flight. His model may have been used as a frame work for what followed, but your missing out on the millions of other steps that were required to accomplish the travel you allude to. Those accolades belong to the men and women who actually made it happen. Not Newton, and I'm certain he himself would point that out.

Now, I have to follow my own paradigm advice and do some deeper research into who, or what Newton(divine geometer) was.

Sorry Phage, have to leave it at that for now.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

It wouldn't be hard to imagine that Newton never once imagined he was going to be the father of space flight.

What are you talking about?

You asked

Or do you feel it is just "Common Knowledge" that the new theory, paradigm, must follow Newtonian Theory

I answered.

I also asked for your understanding of "Newtonian theory."

Let me slice the tension for a moment... assuming there is such.

Mother Earth being pregnant would make your theory true. She's expanding....

Nope... not joking either, although it does make me chuckle to type such.

Do planets give birth to other planets? Do stars give birth?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
You have discussed this with him? I would assume this be the case, if your going to speak for him, correct?

I don't understand his native language either, but I understood what the subtitles said he was saying, so I just paraphrased what the subtitles of the video you posted said he was saying.

The only thing I pointed out is his view point that "Gravity", as a theory, should be reconstructed.

This has been a goal of science for many decades and there are Wikipedia articles on some possible reformulations of gravity but so far all of them have encountered major flaws or stumbling blocks.

Quantum gravity

Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe the force of gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and where quantum effects cannot be ignored.

Coming up with such a theory of gravity is one of the holy grails of modern physics.

I'm familiar with the topic and it doesn't need to be reformulated because of how gravity works in our solar system. As I said that follows established maths very well so any reformulation of gravity will need to more or less match what our existing formulation says about how gravity works in our solar system.

The places that the reformulation would have an effect would be in better explaining maybe how gravity works in a black hole, or Verlinde seems to think that a reformulation might help with dark matter observations and while that's possible I think a reformulation of gravity alone can't explain evidence of dark matter in the bullet cluster.

So I'm open to such reformulations of gravity if they solve these unsolved problems as I think most physicists are, but none of the reformulations will change the way we observe gravity to behave in our solar system. This behavior follows certain equations and it will continue to do so no matter what new formulation of gravity we come up with. Gravity has already been reformulated once by Einstein and as I said it's only a slight tweak to how gravity works in our solar system according to the previous math by Newton. Einstein's reformulation becomes more than a tweak when dealing with objects moving near the speed of light but that's more of a particle accelerator type issue and not so much a solar system issue.

I find this statement interesting. I do know that in order to correct a faulty paradigm, one must exit that paradigm, in order to see its fault. And in this case, Mr Verlinde stated that this paradigm, gravity, needs to be overhauled. Did Mr Verlinde share this sentiment with you? Or do you feel it is just "Common Knowledge" that the new theory, paradigm, must follow Newtonian Theory. I'm curious as to your thoughts.

Observations are not a paradigm, they are observations. Any model must be consistent with observations. The model can be reformulated, but you can't start with a blank sheet of paper as you are suggesting, because we already have many observations of our solar system as a constraint to whatever new model is devised, it will have to explain these observations. To the extent that Newton's and Einstein's models already match these observations, so will the new model have to match these observations meaning the reformulated math will have to be very similar to the current math in the context of our solar system.

Moffat has already tried to propose reformulated math to explain some dark matter observations in distant galaxies, called "MOND" for "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" but it doesn't really explain bullet cluster observations. If it did I see no reason it couldn't gain acceptance by scientists, but as the name implies like any other reformulation it's still got to work pretty much like Newton's math on the scale of our solar system, and it does, as any new formulation of gravity must do. Verlinde doesn't even have a model because as he says in the video, it's not ready yet.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
Newton was a fascinating individual. While he's generally credited with being something like the father of modern science because of his application of scientific methodology, you have to appreciate that he didn't grow up in a world where this was the norm like we do today. Newton grew up in a world where a scientific approach was not the norm and the people around him had some mystical beliefs and so of course it's not surprising that Newton was influenced by the society in which he lived to also have some mystical beliefs.

Like all humans he's partly a product of his environment and I don't have less respect for him because of that. His application of science was absolutely brilliant and while with 20/20 hindsight some of his quirkier beliefs seem odd to us today, they weren't odd considering the environment in his culture at the time.

originally posted by: MamaJ
Do planets give birth to other planets?

Protoplanets tend to merge, and the leading hypothesis for the formation of our moon is that it's the result of a mars-sized protoplanet colliding with Earth.

There was a crank called Velikovsky who wrote a book which became popular proposing what you suggest, but as Wiki says:

en.wikipedia.org...

the book's claims are completely rejected by the established scientific community as they are not supported by any available evidence.

some of his ideas about planets giving birth to plants were completely implausible and contradicted what we know about physics.

Do stars give birth?

Stars are born, but I never heard of them giving birth in any conventional use of that term. Big stars "explode" when they die in supernovae, the remnants of which can form new stars/solar systems, but I can't say I ever thought of supernovae as "giving birth", though I suppose if somebody wanted to describe the process as such I could see their point of view. The process is too unlike birth for me to want to describe it so.

A Greek by the name of Eratosthenes 276-194 BC, without the aid of computers or satellites, just using a water well and a long stick, worked out the circumference of the earth to the equivalent in miles as 25,000, its is 24,901.55 miles, not bad at all, so it would seem that for the last two thousand odd years that the earth has not expanded at at, I am most grateful.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: MamaJ
Let me slice the tension for a moment... assuming there is such.

Mother Earth being pregnant would make your theory true. She's expanding....

Nope... not joking either, although it does make me chuckle to type such.

Do planets give birth to other planets? Do stars give birth?

Pictures taken in front of Vatican, United Nations and World Trade Center

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: MamaJ
Let me slice the tension for a moment... assuming there is such.

Mother Earth being pregnant would make your theory true. She's expanding....

Nope... not joking either, although it does make me chuckle to type such.

Do planets give birth to other planets? Do stars give birth?

As "Impressionist" Art, it is quite revealing, especially by a left hander like me.



Pictures taken in front of Vatican, United Nations and World Trade Center

It is a bold move to display such art, but may in fact actually display the level of arrogance that comes from "Within".
Or, as your impression is, a rebirth, from within.
Thank you for sharing.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The "Sphere within a Sphere" Statue depicts a huge fractured orb. Inside the cracked orb you can see another one. Each tremendous sphere is broken, showing yet another cracking sphere. The design of the internal layers seems to imitate the gears or cogwheels of a complex machine such as a clock. It symbolizes the fragility and complexity of the world.This fascinating statue is located in the courtyard of the Pine cone outside the Vatican Museum. Pomodoro started to create these orbs in the early 1960s.

vatican.com...

You are, of course, allowed to your own interpretation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Newton was a fascinating individual. While he's generally credited with being something like the father of modern science because of his application of scientific methodology, you have to appreciate that he didn't grow up in a world where this was the norm like we do today. Newton grew up in a world where a scientific approach was not the norm and the people around him had some mystical beliefs and so of course it's not surprising that Newton was influenced by the society in which he lived to also have some mystical beliefs.

I have been reading up on him and the story is far more reaching than one might imagine.

Yes, he is known for the Gravitational math, which by the way, numbers like time, do not exist in nature. And it seems one of our fundamental mistakes is trying to get nature to conform to our ideology. It appears, nature, has its own mind about how it should operate. And I'm guessing nature, is going to win out in the long run.

Newton also studied Light, and, well what do you know, ancient history!

And you are right about the time he was born, in fact I would say he was 1000 years ahead of his time. He found himself in the middle of political tensions with the royal family and the Royal Society, and as you alluded to, influenced by the "Occult".

Interestingly, his first book went threw 3 rewrites because his "peers(I hate peer pressure)" insisted he make his finding a little more "Simple". Towards the end of his life he became embroiled in I suppose, political battles. Or, he discovered something political powers of that day did not want exposed, so he might have burned his work concerning it. He did calculate the end of the word as to occur in 2060. But much of this may be taken out of context due to my ignorance in the research, I need more time for that.

Today, it has been discovered that matter on the sub atomic level behaves, to say the least, bizarre. The Double Slit Experiment proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can try to stuff observed phenomenon into neat little numbered packages called theories, and at best, you will only ever be right, a majority of the time, unless, you get out of the paradigm. Newton wasn't wrong in his observations of light, he just didn't take into consideration the other half of the equation, his personal receptors of light. So, observations are even brought into the debate. They may be just unique things to the individual. You say tomato, I say Tamato. You say UFO, I say, Reality Adjuster/ manipulator.

We shouldn't allow our differences to hold us back, but rather, use them, to propel us forward. So far, there has been no collaboration, only staunch defense of a science that is in desperate need of help. If Newton was correct about the date then it may even now be too late. I'm not insinuating Newton was "wised up" about the true nature of the planet, that would be quite a leap of faith. But, what if he was? Paranoid? Obsessive? He must have known something, and that something went to the grave with him.

I was and still am a trained scientific observer that has specialized in aerial phenomenon. And what I saw defies logic and all the theories of gravity. So I know Newton was missing something in his theory. I cant put my finger on it, but I can tell you gravity can be nullified, I have seen it. So until that mystery is solved, we don't know jack about gravity.
Newton does appear to have been a gifted man, but one who was only allowed to see a apple fall, not levitate. The world today could be an entirely different place, if he had.

Food for thought, or, just another mind toy to play with........

Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I cant put my finger on it, but I can tell you gravity can be nullified, I have seen it. So until that mystery is solved, we don't know jack about gravity.

Birds, bats, bugs, dandelion seeds, balloons, blimps, planes, and helicopters all "defy gravity" and rockets can even escape the Earth's gravity, but it's never been shown to be nullified. Well, unless you count the Hutchison hoax videos or the like which are such pathetic fakes that there's really not much reason to try to argue about them with anybody who thinks he's not hoaxing.

So you've got an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, and no evidence at all of gravity nullification that I can see. The part that you're not getting is that even if we say gravity theory needs a re-write (and the pursuit of a theory of quantum gravity acknowledges this), the resulting rewrite cannot contradict observations, and we have plenty of those. I'm sure you have no idea how precisely we measure gravity so let me give you an example to boggle your mind, called the Pioneer anomaly. The Pioneer 10 spacecraft was traveling at over 40,000 kilometers per hour, and and some scientists were suggesting maybe we need new physics or a new model of gravity because the speed after 10 years was 1 kilometer per hour different than our existing theory of gravity seemed to predict.

Finally the mystery was solved but that's how accurate our measurements of gravity are that such a tiny variance can cause large debate in the scientific community. So there's not a lot of room to postulate that gravity is going to behave vastly different than current theory predicts in our own solar system, because of the precision of our measurements and how well these measurements agree with our current models.

If you want to talk about our predictions of gravity in distant galaxies, yes we have some problems there but that's not really relevant to the topic of this thread where you're talking about events in our solar system, where our predictions are amazingly accurate.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In the video Mr Cambell stated Newton believed a photon was a particle, and Einstein believed it was a wave. When it has now been show to be dependent on the measurement or observation. And it appears its changing from one state to the other depends if our photon receptors observe it.

So you've got an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, and no evidence at all of gravity nullification that I can see.

Levitating objects

In the past, scientists have used everything from laser beams to superconducting magnetic fields to levitate objects. And in 2014, researchers at the University of Dundee in Scotland showed that acoustic holograms that act like a tractor beam could theoretically suck in objects.

"They really just showed the force was there; they weren't able to grab or pull anything," Drinkwater said.

The principle behind the new system is simple: Sound waves, which are waves of high and low pressure that travel through a medium such as air, produce force.

www.livescience.com...

Levitation is now a reality using sound "Waves". Levitation, or gravity cancellation, tomatos or Tamatos.

Acoustic levitation takes advantage of the properties of sound to cause solids, liquids and heavy gases to float. The process can take place in normal or reduced gravity. In other words, sound can levitate objects on Earth or in gas-filled enclosures in space.

science.howstuffworks.com...

So now, science has caught up with my observations, except on a smaller scale, and no doubt using a different mechanism.

So you've got an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence

It all depends if you will accept the evidence. And you, with the photo of a UFO in your tag line lol lol lol. What I saw didn't have USAF on the side lol lol lol.

Quantum Physics tells us Light can be either a particle, or a wave. It now has shown waves can cancel out gravity. I'm just curious if "other" waves of some type could do the same.........

Mental note: Smaller planets are closer to the sun and receive more photons. larger planets are further away from the sun, and receive less photons. Pluto not a planet. Ceres not a planet.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Levitation is now a reality using sound "Waves". Levitation, or gravity cancellation, tomatos or Tamatos.

No it's not tomatos vs Tamatos. Gravity is always there and never cancelled. Levitation is achieved by generating forces opposing that of gravity.

If gravity was really cancelled, you wouldn't need such an opposing force, an object could just "float" without such a force. That never happens with gravity as nobody has ever demonstrated such a thing in experiment. Podkletnov claims a slight reduction of gravity in his experiment but nobody has ever replicated that so I suspect it may have been experimental error. There is plenty of that possible in the type of experiment he tried to conduct.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment

Video 8:27 "reality is a product of consciousness"

By changing your consciousness/awareness about reality, you are changing reality itself. You change your consciousness/awareness with words/language

a reply to: Ove38

By changing your consciousness/awareness about reality, you are changing reality itself.

Yours maybe.
Not mine.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38

By changing your consciousness/awareness about reality, you are changing reality itself.

Yours maybe.
Not mine.

Your reality is a product of your words

a reply to: Ove38

Ok.
You don't exist.

*poof*