Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
My statement concerning the geod is merely offering what is known as "Circumstantial evidence". And Circumstantial evidence, is admissible in a court of law, as I'm sure it was, in the Royal Society's court.

This is more of a science issue than a legal issue. The geode doesn't have enough mass to collapse the hollow core, the Earth does.

You can see where gravity becomes an overwhelming force by making observations. We can see non-spherical potato-shaped rocks up to a certain size, but as they get more and more massive, they tend to get more and more spherical. That's why you'll never find a very large rock (the size of Earth) shaped like a potato, or that is substantially hollow. Gravitational forces become stronger than the rocks' ability to resist above a certain mass.

So all the Geode shows is that some ancients who didn't understand modern science, didn't understand modern science. They couldn't even see all the asteroids that we can, which confirm our ideas about gravity today, so in their defense they were at somewhat of a disadvantage.

We've put our understanding into the definition of a planet as follows:

Definition of "Planet"

"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape...

"sufficient mass" in modern science terms generally means above 500000000000000000000 kilograms, and the mass of the earth is more than 10,000 times greater than that, so obviously this is why, according to modern science, objects the mass of Earth are too massive for the rocks they are composed of to substantially resist the forces of gravity. The Earth has mountains and valleys that are about like scratches on the scale of a spherical billiard ball, and it's slightly non-spherical due to its spin, but its shape is very consistent with modern theory.

Now if you had a hollow geode or other hollow rocky object over 500000000000000000000 kilograms, that would be something scientists would be interested in seeing as it would challenge their theories. How many kilograms do you suppose there are in your example geode? Non-spherical objects and hollow rocky objects of less mass may not conflict with modern theory, and the geode certainly doesn't because the mass is so small.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
In which context did he make this observation, under the influence of the force known as gravity, or outside of the force known as gravity. The context would make a difference in my answer.

There's no such thing as outside the force of gravity, which follows the inverse square law so it gets weaker with distance but doesn't go to zero, which is why even very distant Pluto still orbits the sun even though gravity from the sun is much lower at that distance compared to closer orbits.

Anyway it's well known the Greek's physics wasn't right and it wasn't really right until Newton came along and provided his laws of motion that:
- Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. (The Greeks didn't get this)
-two other laws about f=ma and action/reaction that still apply to this day and are used in our space program.

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

Was Newton correct with his research into ancient history?

Slightly more on topic.
Is his gravitational math accurate?

I apologize for taking so long in answering this. Research, research, research, and a trip out of town.

It appears as though the answer, is no. It is inaccurate.

I know at times I bounce between observation, assumption, opinion, and philosophy. I could use a good "defrag" of my gray matter sometimes lol.

There are many who are now finding fault with Newtons math, and the philosophy that formed it. Even Newton himself discarded much of his work at the end of his life. One letter to a friend did surface which helps us understand his mind.

Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1

Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.

The need to postulate an ether is underlined by G. de Purucker:

We either have to admit the existence of [the] ether or ethers, i.e., of this extremely tenuous and ethereal substance which fills all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans – action at a distance, without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such actio in distans is obviously by all known scientific standards an impossibility. Reason, common sense, logic ... demand the existence of such universally pervading medium, by whatever name we may choose to call it ...2

3. Explaining gravity

"What ever name we choose to call it". Newton himself, submitted to a hidden, secretive, truth. We can not place into a scientific "box", that, which will not fit, as hard as we try by creating philosophy's, or even new mathematical process's, to contain it. Philosophically speaking, that is.

According to Newton’s original formula, a gravitational force between two objects equals the mass of one multiplied by the mass of the other — all divided by the square of the distance between the two objects. Then all that is multiplied by an esoteric, hard-to-describe number that physicists call “Big G.”

In 1916, Albert Einstein made sure Newton’s law fit into his theory of relatively, which contends that gravity is only a manifestation of curvatures in space-time. But what if Newton’s math does not match reality? And if Newton is off, would Einstein be off?

“We physicists, we’re skeptical of every theory,” explains physicist Paul Boynton of the University of Washington.

Actually, Einstein’s concept of gravity — building on Newton’s work — is just one of more than a half dozen theories of gravity floating around. Most were unveiled in the past 50 years, each harder to understand than the math for Einstein’s theory.

crosscut.com...

In as far as me making things up, well, its called vision. And it isn't hard to see that after Halley and Newton met, it was a joint venture, in the framework of the "Royal Society".

Even now, honest, devoted and sincere scientists are coming forth with the truth.

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.

Monya Baker

25 May 2016
Article tools

PDF
Rights & Permissions

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.

www.nature.com...

It appears, at least to me, that certain scientific philosophy's have forgotten as to how many "assumptions" have been stacked up, and used to pillar their scientific opinions, research.

Newtons own math pointed out, as Edmund Halley, pointed out, the Earth must be Hollow. So one must ask why the ancient philosophy changed from a Hollow Sphere (Geod), to a philosophy of a Solid Sphere, filled with Molten rock?

So, no matter how you look at it, it just doesn't add up............. Its just like the computer "Garbage in, Garbage out".

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You do know that the hollow Earth theory has literally been exploded years ago - don't you? It fails to explain plate tectonics or basic gravity, it fails to explain the Earth's magnetic field and it fails to explain what we can detect beneath our feet whenever there's an earthquake via seismic waves. Oh, and Newton didn't have access to any of the above.

Just thought, if the earth was hollow 65 million years ago, would not that gigantic meteor have punched through the crust? Which I presume would have left a hole that would have been there to this day? (the remains of the crater are)

originally posted by: pikestaff
Just thought, if the earth was hollow 65 million years ago, would not that gigantic meteor have punched through the crust? Which I presume would have left a hole that would have been there to this day? (the remains of the crater are)

Thank you for your input, its a great question.

You are speaking of the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan peninsula? 185 miles a cross? 65 million years ago?

The Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan peninsula, Mexico, is not visible at the surface of the seafloor. Scientists rely on geophysical images for information about its size and shape. This image shows the variations in the gravity field near the buried impact crater. The image shows ring-like structures that extend to about 280 kilometers (175 miles) from the center.

This crater is believed to have formed when an asteroid struck Earth 65 million years ago. This impact is thought to have triggered fires and tsunamis and created a cloud of dust and water vapor that enveloped the globe in a matter of days, resulting in fluctuating global climate changes. The extreme environmental shifts caused a mass extinction of 75% of Earth's species, including the dinosaurs.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

You will notice above the mention of Ring like structures around the crater. www.sheppardsoftware.com...

In the Hollow/ Expanding Earth theory, these rings would be indicative of what is called rebound. Rebound is what the crust does when hit with a rather large object. The crust is displaced inward and shatters in a ring like pattern, then gravity "Pushes" the crust back to its original position.

Seeing how this happened 65 million years ago, the crust would have been roughly 1/2 thicker than it is now. The estimates of today's crustal thickness is approximately 600 miles, maybe 1000 - 1200 miles thick back then. That is still a lot of real estate to punch a hole through. Rebound craters can be seen on other planets in the solar system as well.

Edmund Hally of the Royal Society, was the first in modern times to suggest a hollow planet. He was also a coauthor of Newtons famous book, the Principia. So the idea of a hollow planet is based on Both Newtons and Halley's math, and not new at all.

Though, I suppose it is possible for a extremely large heavenly body, say 1000 miles wide, to actually pierce the crust. But something that big, wouldn't just leave a hole, it would leave a asteroid belt, in my humble opinion.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

And once again, gravitational evidence and a host of other scientific discoveries and achievements over the past 300 years have shown that Halley's idea of a hollow earth has been long since disproved. Volcanoes disprove it for a start. Basic plate tectonics.

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

And once again, gravitational evidence and a host of other scientific discoveries and achievements over the past 300 years have shown that Halley's idea of a hollow earth has been long since disproved. Volcanoes disprove it for a start. Basic plate tectonics.

Since its formation in 1996, the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group and its newsletter have become the main focus of organized opposition to the reigning paradigm of plate tectonics. The NCGT Newsletter provides a vital forum where critics and opponents of plate tectonics can present and discuss anomalous data and alternative interpretations and theories. The group is now firmly established, and its activities will remain necessary until it once again becomes possible for a variety of competing hypotheses and theories, and the data underpinning them, to be openly aired and debated in mainstream publications.

davidpratt.info...

Aims include:

1. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of Plate Tectonics.

2. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or discrimination.

3. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the Earth and planetary and galactic effects, major theories of development of the Earth, lineaments, interpretation and prediction of earthquakes, major times of tectonic and biological change, and so on.

4. Organization of symposia, meetings and conferences.

5. Tabulation and support in case of censorship, discrimination or victimization.

The New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group

Not specifically directed at Halley's theory, but a doorway has opened, and I sincerely doubt it will ever be closed, again.

I believe, you are assuming the question of Gravity has been answered. But then again, their are so many assumptions(big holes) in, your scientific view, that anyone could drive a fleet of Semi Tractor trailers through them.

To date, gravity, is only a theory, and a theory that is full of "Assumptions".

Newtonian gravity theory is challenged by various aspects of planetary behavior in our solar system. The rings of Saturn, for example, present a major problem.16 There are tens of thousands of rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is either less dense or essentially absent. The complex, dynamic nature of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanics to explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle.

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eötvös in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent ‘fifth force’. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.5

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition.6 His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Crémieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth’s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.7

davidpratt.info...

Nothing has been "disproved"

Lesson #1: The Earth is NOT a ball of molten lava

The first question everyone asks me when they hear of the Hollow Planet idea is: "Where does lava come from then?" The (completely FALSE) impression schools have created in everyone's minds is that the Earth is this red-hot ball of lava. They then imagine that lava from volcanoes comes from the centre of the Earth.

Ask any geologist or seismologist if this is true and you will discover they disagree. Standard geology and seismology texts tell a different story. Scientists know that most lava is slightly radioactive and they believe it is produced either by decaying radium (decayed uranium) or through stresses in the crust. Lava is created by heat generated within the crust of the Earth. The crust is said to be no more than 20 miles thick, although to be honest nobody has ever actually penetrated the crust so we really do not know what (if anything different) lies beneath it. Scientists will tell you that lava is a crustal phenomenon and all lava comes from no deeper than 20 miles down.

If the Earth were an "ocean of molten lava" then it would actually be subject to tidal pressures and the continents would be broken to pieces as the earth rotated. Scientists say the Earth is actually composed of solid rock for the most part. As you go deeper, the pressures are supposed to be so great that the rock actually flows from extreme pressure. (As you will see, even this may not be really true). But nowhere in modern geology or seismology will you see them saying the Earth is a ball of molten lava.

In fact, the final proof comes from seismology itself. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves travel out in all directions throughout all the earth. There are two types of seismic waves: P and S. Based on this, scientists know that all of the earth is actually quite RIGID and composed only of rock. The only partial exception is the Outer core.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The evidence can be read many ways, but the simplest to understand, is the earth is hollow. And, Occam's razor should be followed.

Scientists call Volcanoes "Hot Spots", because it is unique to its location, one spot. The mechanism that produce these hot spots can be as simple as a localized chemical reaction, and great pressures. There is no need for a molten hot center, unless there is another, reason, to create it.

Very Occam's Razor, don't you agree?

I disagree, and copying and pasting vast quotes from dubious sources does not really give it any validity. Thats actually not being objective, but simply nodding along with someone elses idea without subjectively looking at evidence, not only that but the evidence presented on your quotes is open to huge misinterpretation...

its like saying "Oh but we could interpret it this way... if we ignore like 90% of what we know about science" BUT WE CAN! so it must be true.

Most of what is said on the page regarding the crust and molten mantel, is just outright ignoring most of the evidence and even goes as far as to suggest radiation is caused by stress in rock... which is simply not true

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Maybe the Earth is like a giant RAR or ZIP archive and there is more inside it than the size of it.

Like a few bits can make more bits, so does the Earth make more Earth.

Eventually the entire Earth is unzipped and the Great Plan is revealed.

The Earth is a WAV file of an MP3 file.

We are high quality copies of an inferior source.

We are square waves.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Nothing has been "disproved"

Lesson #1: The Earth is NOT a ball of molten lava...

In fact, the final proof comes from seismology itself. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves travel out in all directions throughout all the earth. There are two types of seismic waves: P and S. Based on this, scientists know that all of the earth is actually quite RIGID and composed only of rock. The only partial exception is the Outer core.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The evidence can be read many ways, but the simplest to understand, is the earth is hollow.

Don't you see the irony here? You cite a source saying "scientists know that all of the earth is actually quite RIGID and composed only of rock. The only partial exception is the Outer core." Then you contradict your own source, saying it's wrong. You can't even make a coherent self-consistent argument. The seismic evidence you cite is some of the best evidence that the earth isn't hollow.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I find your cites to be massively lacking. David Pratt? Seriously?




EDIT: And you really don't have a clue about volcanoes, do you? Are you familiar with the Ring of Fire?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I was thinking the same during my drive to work, self consistent argument or reasoning is quite important

It is bad form to first claim the Earth is hollow, then post a source that states things as 'FACT' while also claiming that there are lots of things we don't know... so how can it be fact if we dont know??? Then go on to state that it isn't hollow but it is solid...

Which itself is not consistent with an earlier statement when we discussed how parts of the Earth are moving up and down relative to each other... which if the Earth was rigid, would not be possible...

See where the issues are All seeing eye?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yep folk get ready they don't want you to know because no one is prepared for the disaster

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Maybe the Earth is like a giant RAR or ZIP archive and there is more inside it than the size of it.

Like a few bits can make more bits, so does the Earth make more Earth.

Eventually the entire Earth is unzipped and the Great Plan is revealed.

The Earth is a WAV file of an MP3 file.

We are high quality copies of an inferior source.

We are square waves.

I like your philosophy, there is no harm at all in exercising ones imagination. And I do agree, we, are expanding into a new awareness, a new paradigm. The old guard, gate keepers want to go down in a fight, sad. There is no compromise in their mindset. Reality, must be viewed through their very old Newtonian Prism.

Like a few bits can make more bits, so does the Earth make more Earth.

The physical world does not make anything new. It does however, covert, what is already here. For instance, I observe a crust that is expanding due to pressures from inside and out, squeezing the crust as if it were made out of clay, not the addition of any new materials. The material coming out of the oceanic ridges is not new, just converted internal crust that has been pressured to the point of liquidation. So on one side, it is new, but on the other, as old as the planet itself.


What is new and produced from its inception, is the product of the planet. This firmament has produced some of the greatest people ever known. And some? Well if the story is right, will be recycled into a new chance, beginning. Human "beings", are the product.

We are high quality copies of an inferior source.

Humbly, I believe you are correct. But before the paradigm shift can occur, we must prove ourselves worthy, of such an inheritance. I imagine...

Thank you for your input. Its thought provoking, and appreciated.

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

Yep folk get ready

they don't want you to know because no one is prepared for the disaster

Thank you for bringing this up.

It is only a side issue what makes the earth quake, the results either way, can be devastating. This video demonstrates quakes in the ocean and the destruction that will follow, and as pointed out the death tole will be high. But just as destructive, continental quakes will impact mass transit, power distribution, and a wider zone.

It has happened in the past to the point where continents tilt, bend, and break. Rivers change course and entire large cities can be wiped out, inland. The great lakes can overflow their banks via uplift and wipe out entire states.

The earth is constantly in a state of change, whether you want to blame subduction, or expansion. The end result will be the same. The exception is, with the subduction theory, there is nothing one can do. But in the Expansion theory, there is. Two courses of action I can think of.

Now, I offer the following video only to supplement yours. Please not 3.30 min.
I can not validate this video, but then again, considering the severity involved, I do not care one little bit if this is staged or actual. The outcome again, will be the same.

I prefer logical calm discussion rather than information based in fear mongering, but if we don't do something soon, we will face trauma after trauma, after trauma.



Now, do you want to use your own mind, or continue to listen to the bull horns of the gate keepers..........

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No thank you I think this thread needs a massive bump people are unaware

Where I am located the coast can break off any time it reminds me of Atlantis

I mean I don't know how can we prepare but at least having awareness it's a start

Thank you for adding the video, absolutely

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I find your cites to be massively lacking. David Pratt? Seriously?

Yes, David Pratt has an opinion, just like you, and me. And it should be given just as much weight, as Newtons flawed Theory.

What Isaac Newton got wrong in the concept of gravity.

Simple theory says Newton is wrong, Einstein can be improved and dark matter does not exist

Mr Pratt has a page called "Who Am I". I must post it in its entity for those who do not visit the linked pages. Its just that important.

Who am I?


Date: 21 Nov 2007
Subject: do you have any credentials?

Dear Mr. Pratt,

Having explored your site and found some potentially valuable information, I find myself at a loss to explain who exactly you are. You see, as a philosopher (I'm at [...] in Canada) I am always looking for good reference material and your site certainly appears to bring together some important issues in disparate fields which quite elegantly dovetail together, i.e. science, religion, and philosophy. However, I am unable to find *any* credentials at all, any institutional affiliation, anything at all which allows me to verify you as a reliable source. Anyone can synthesize from a layman's perspective and the results of such speculations are totally uninteresting. As of yet, since you don't even post your own CV on your website, I am left to assume that you are nothing more than a moderately convincing pundit/charlatan, devoid of any robust theoretical education in any of the fields you mean to unite. Can you at least tell me that you attended university? I'd like to reference one of your articles in my own work, but unless you can give me some reason to treat your work seriously, I will have to ignore it.

Yours,
[...]


Date: 24 Nov 2007

Dear [...],

You're saying that the "potentially valuable information" on my website will become "totally uninteresting" and the work of a "charlatan" unless I've been to a university? I like your sense of humor. I have university qualifications in modern languages, translation, and technical sciences. But I regard this as irrelevant, because I think that what anybody says or writes should be judged on its intrinsic merits. Many of my articles are about fundamental differences of opinion between scientists with equally excellent credentials in a particular field. So a university education does not preclude serious errors, even in one's own specialism. I'm also a great believer in self-education.

Regards,

David Pratt

davidpratt.info...

And yes, I agree with his mindset

Are you familiar with the Ring of Fire?

Yes, yes, I am.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If you're familiar with the Ring of Fire then it should therefore be painfully obvious to you why it is a ring of fire. The answer is plate tectonics. There's a reason why volcanoes tend to be in regions where plates are subducting (like plate tectonics). There's a connection. There are also hot spots like Hawaii and Yellowstone. Volcanoes have nothing to do with chemistry or radiation. It's a question of subduction or mantle plumes.
And no, lava doesn't come from the Earth's core.
This thread is getting increasingly ridiculous. It started off as amusing to anyone with a scintilla of basic knowledge of geology and it's become a case of you saying things and everyone else either laughing or wanting to beat their head against the nearest wall in frustration. Plate tectonics is the most viable theory there is. Oh and you really, really don't understand what scientific theories constitute.

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

No thank you I think this thread needs a massive bump people are unaware

Where I am located the coast can break off any time it reminds me of Atlantis

I mean I don't know how can we prepare but at least having awareness it's a start

Thank you for adding the video, absolutely

???????????????

"Break off" from what? And by the way Atlantis didn't exist other than in a political tract written by Plato, so calm down and stop worrying about it.

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

No thank you I think this thread needs a massive bump people are unaware

Where I am located the coast can break off any time it reminds me of Atlantis

I mean I don't know how can we prepare but at least having awareness it's a start

Thank you for adding the video, absolutely

No thank you

Its what I have been trying to tell them myself.

I think this thread needs a massive bump people are unaware

You can lead the horse to water.......but you cant make them think...... well, outside of the established paradigm, anyways.. Thank you very much.

Where I am located the coast can break off any time it reminds me of Atlantis

And why shouldn't it? Its quite possible that Atlantis met its end in a massive earth event. But don't trouble yourself with the thought, the Bullhorn, says that was all just a myth, and don't spend any time thinking about it.

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.

Read more at: www.brainyquote.com...