Observable base for Earth age calculations

If u want an observable base for ur calculations concerning the age of the Earth start here. What evidence do we have that demonstrates the effects of the gravitational half life?

Well-Gravitational vortexes clearly define the same carbon covering twice the area every 1,400 years. Demonstrating this effect of the 1,400 year half life in such a way that it can be physically observed. Water supposedly can not be crushed; regardless of tremendous pressures applied. Thus the dependable calculations for hydraulics. However gravitational vortexes do this naturally, without resistance.

Simply look up gravitational vortexes on the net and find the pictures of the people, which are mostly water, changing sizes according to their locations within the influence of the vortex. The same thing will occur with buckets of water.

With the insight into the gravitational half life that the vortexes demonstrate, the beginning and the end of the Earth might be calculated with a much greater ease of accuracy.

Our planet measures 7,926 miles in diameter. The gravitational vortexes demonstrate that 1,400 years ago the Earth would only be 6290.870 of our present miles in diameter. Though the life on the planet would not notice a difference because they are within the same influence.

How does this new gravitational half life help to calculate how old the Earth really is? This is a definite clarification demonstrating which is correct between the Darwinian verses biblical views. With the seven days of creation being 1000 years each, then the next 6000 years bringing us to the year 2000 AD. This would make a total of 9.285714 doublings of our original planetary mass area by the actual year 2000 AD. The end of the seventh day of our race would equal a total of ten doublings of our planetary mass or, 1024 times its original area. Earths original cohesive field being thinned out 1024 times!

Gravitational vortexes demonstrate the same cohesive filed expanding over an ever increasing area unto the point that the cohesive field will no longer be able to hold the mass together.

If our planet were 56,000 years old then according to the demonstration of the gravitational vortexes its original diameter would only have been about 4054.66 feet in diameter. Less than 1 mile. If the earth were 84,000 years old today, according to the evidence demonstrated by the gravitational vortexes, its original diameter would only have been about 39.9 feet in diameter.

Assume that the Earth were 127,400 years old or, 91 doublings of the Earths original area. The Earth would have been less than 1 inch in diameter originally. This demonstrates the Darwinian teaching not to be scientifically feasible. The gravitational half life is known to be scientific fact; and its meaning is demonstrated by the gravitational vortexes.

I challange anyone to show me a more concrete base for calculations concerning the age and duration of the Earth.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by noconsequence]

reply to post by noconsequence


I sent you a u2u.

Are you saying the earth is growing? I watched a video from someone that made complete sense. He showed how all the land masses were together at one point and when you look at the ocean floor it looks like stretch marks.

Anyway cool post.

Peace

I am not sure growing is a fitting word since there is basically not much mass being added to it as much as it is simply expanding. The expansion is a result of moving away from the more intense gravitational field in the center of our galaxy.

Though books such as "The Universal One" that give u these facts are generally quickly removed from the market, there are many scientists that have claimed that matter and light are one in the same. It's just that, "cool" atoms do not tend to throw heavy matter and so you truly have an event on the outside of our cool galaxy where the matter simply spreads out too much for its cohesive field to hold it together.

This gravitational half life is a result of the mass spreading out in a less constraining gravitational field.. The closer you get to the center of the galaxy the more compressed you become. People in positions of power feel that they have reason for u not knowing this.

Walter Russell wrote "the universal one". It's on the market though it's possible that they over edited it as I have discovered what appears to be different versions of the book. And they're still charging a lot more for the old version. Though I have not compaired the 2 and they could be identical..

Love ur avatar I don't know how to put one on yet. Duh

reply to post by noconsequence


Hey thank you for answering me and welcome to ats. I'm sorry you haven't gotten more responses. I know they did some work on the servers today, so perhaps, that is why you didn't see many comments.

This is the thread I was referencing here.

This is the actual site Neal Adams.

I'm not sure if this actually ties in to what you are presenting, but I am interested to here more.

Thank you for your comments on my avatar.

To put one up for yourself, all you will need is an online picture server such as Photobucket or Flicker that you can sign up for free.

Perhaps you already have an account. I use photobucket because they give you many different link options, anyway, your avatar can be no larger then 320pixels high by 160pixels wide.

Once you have it, upload it to your online provider the picture service will provide you with links. You will want the "direct" http link. Once you have obtained that, then go to the memcenter box (where you entered your name and stuff at here at ats) and insert your link into the "avatar" line and save...waula.

I hope that helps you, hit me up if you need any help.

Peace to you. ltru

[edit on 13-2-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

I got the radio show from youtube; for some reason the other ones didn't come up when opened. I find myself agreeing with much of what was being discussed on the page that u showed me.

Actually I believe that new mass is continually being added that would increase the overall amount of the Earths' mass field; while the field density is still divided by 1/2 every 1'400 years. i do not believe that the added matter is all that unique in origon.

I also agree that this growing is demonstrated the way they were saying for whatever reason. however I have to stick with the only observable information that demonstrates what the gravitational half life means.. I would say that we are discussing 2 different events.

I have written a book that describes the origonation of matter which also is in agreement with the Egyptian hieroglyphs. It is very much like Walter Russells' work.. Though after throwing most of my work away recently due to the frustration of many unfortunate circumstances, I only have an old unedited version. I never published it.

Thanx for the avatar info..

Your so-called method of calculating the age of the Earth is not, as far as I can tell, supported by any qualified scientists, whereas the method of calculating age based on radiometric dating is supported by basically every qualified geologist.

So, unless you provide evidence that qualified scientists support this method, I'm forced to conclude you are pulling things out of your ass.

Your statement proves me wrong?

Rather than come blasting rudly at what might just be cutting edge work perhaps you can show my friend exactly where the errors are in his math Samurai..

reply to post by noconsequence


Don't be bothered by that, what samuri is saying. It doesn't matter what you bring up here with any amount of logic, some will oppose you in favor for what they are comfortable with. Samuri is comfortable with what mainstream says.

You will draw to you those who will benefit from what you are saying. I can understand if people disagree, I just don't understand why they have to interject negativity in such a manner.

Anyway, I like what you are saying. Bravo and I hope to here more.

Peace

To be honest I believe that one reason they get such high numbers in their dating method is because the radiometric dating would naturally be compounded by this same gravitational half life that everybody knows about, thus giving you some really big numbers. Also a lot of my work goes almost word for word with Walter Russells' work if I was discussing, "qualified scientists". In the words if Indiana Jones, "If you want to be a good archieologist you have to get out of the library".. There is a time to study then there is a time to develop individually.

You're right- believing a community of people with PhD's in Geology and Physics over some guy on an internet forum with no scientific credentials? I am indeed overlooking some very cutting edge work.

I'm embarrassed I even dignified this with a response- I notice none of the other "evolutionists" did.

reply to post by SamuraiDrifter

That's okay, I'll share your embarrassment.

OP, could you explain, please:

1. What is a gravitational vortex (I take it you're not using the term to mean what it does in fluid mechanics)?

2. How does this gravitational vortex affect radiometric dating? Could you describe the process?

3. Why can't this 'gravitational vortex effect' (whatever it is, and if it really exists) be corrected for in radiometric dating calculations?

Let's see if there's any real science here, or just another load of hogwash.

Gravitational vortexes affect the gravitational field of the Earth causing many different anomalies; one of which being the compression of matter. This demonstrates the difference a more condensed field has on matter as opposed to a less condensed field; thus demonstrating the effect that the 1,400 year gravititational half life of the Earth has on us in an observable way..

www.roadsideamerica.com...

With the half life of the Earths' gravitational field in mind, from what I make sense of it, the age of the object in question could be divided by 2 for every 1400 years of the dating process results. I havn't done that particular research and math, so I could not tell u at what point to begin this devision. The results of the effects of the planetary gravitational half life are clearly demonstrated within the gravitational vortex influences as people and objecs are moved into changing densities of the Earths' gravitational field.

I would like to say at this point that though I have much more work that coincides with this, my work in this area was only a minute place on my path to other areas of my work dealing with a lot of Egyptology and natural sciences.. I saw what I saw and went on. I was too focused on my goals; and too busy trying to spare my loved ones from murderous disinformation specialists who were there because of the height of my work.. I make no excuses for not having further work in this area as it pretty much had no importence for my goals.. It was just a small thing that I learned to my satisfaction along the way.. Gravitational vortexes also help to demonstrate what matter and light are..

I am only saying this for those who get it and not for the others who cannot appreciate my fight.. It's not ok for a person to do their own research in their own areas of interest because they don't have a degree? History tells me otherwise concerning the importance of this..Concerning the effects of the Earths gravitational half life I see no reasonable need to debate facts that explain themselves through simple observation.. I am only sharing the same observation that U can make by using ur own eyes. People can go ahead and deny their eyes however I choose to believe mine if u don't mind..

I have nO degrees in any area.. However being the result of the empowerment capabilities of my work, I have recieved an offer to work with secret government research that I turned down. I accepted another. Upon getting into position under a very good man I discovered that I was surrounded by people whose movement in my opinion effectivly harmed the race oon what I considered an astoundingly large scale.. It had nothing to do with my superior.. Rather than root in and try to be a standard against these evils I decided I should separate myself from these people. So I left.. That means I offended the man that put me into this position. No cookies for mE.. Though it was probably a mistake, as it is hard living now. No cookies for mE..

Specifically to Astyanax: I wish I could have answered your quite reasonable questions more sufficiently. I hope what I did say made sence..




[edit on 15-2-2009 by noconsequence]

Originally posted by noconsequence
Specifically to Astyanax: I wish I could have answered your quite reasonable questions more sufficiently.

A few more questions may help. Let's see. You said

Gravitational vortexes affect the gravitational field of the Earth causing many different anomalies; one of which being the compression of matter.

Here you explain what a gravitational vortex does but not what it is. Look, here's the difference:

Q: What is gravity?

A1: Gravity makes apples fall to Earth

A2: Gravity is a property of massive bodies that causes them to be attracted to other massive bodies.

Your answer is a bit like A1. What we need is something a bit closer to A2. Can you describe what a gravitational vortex is in this way?

This demonstrates the difference a more condensed field has on matter as opposed to a less condensed field

So you conceive of gravity as a field - but what do you mean by a 'condensed' field? How do you condense a field?

thus demonstrating the effect that the 1,400 year gravititational half life of the Earth has on us in an observable way.

This raises a lot of questions.

What is a 'gravitational half-life'? Do you mean that gravitational attraction dissipates over time?

If that's what you mean, what makes you think that it is true? Have there been any observations that can only be explained by this weakening of gravity, or is the weakening predicted by some scientific theory?

So the gravitational half-life of Earth is 1,400 years? Does that mean that the gravitational attraction exerted between Earth and another body halves every 1,400 years? How was this established? How was the effect of the other body's half-life eliminated from the calculations?

With the half life of the Earths' gravitational field in mind, from what I make sense of it, the age of the object in question could be divided by 2 for every 1400 years of the dating process results.

What does Earth's gravitational field have to do with radiometric dating? Do changes in ambient gravity alter the percentage of isotopic carbon present in a sample?

If this is so, how do we know it? Could you link us to the research that established it? Or at least sketch out a hypothesis to explain how the two are connected?

The results of the effects of the planetary gravitational half life are clearly demonstrated within the gravitational vortex influences as people and objecs are moved into changing densities of the Earths' gravitational field.

Could you please be more specific? What exactly happens to these people and objects?

Gravitational vortexes also help to demonstrate what matter and light are.

That's rather intriguing. Would you like to elaborate?

Concerning the effects of the Earths gravitational half life I see no reasonable need to debate facts that explain themselves through simple observation.

Unfortunately, simple observation doesn't reveal the facts so readily to me, so I have to apply to you for enlightenment. I hope you won't mind obliging me with a few more answers.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Astyanax]

The vortexes demonstrate the expansion and compression of matter. I am saying that the depletion of the Earths' magnetic field is a direct result of its' matter expanding; and that the ramifications of the expansion are demonstrated by these vortexes.

The matter is expanding because we are moving away from the denser field in the center of the galaxy.. I am claiming that this measurement of the Earths' magnetic field half life is the direct result of this expansion. Thus the gravitational half-life is equal to the Earths' magnetic half-life.

What is a 'gravitational half-life'? Do you mean that gravitational attraction dissipates over time?

As a result of this expansion you have the same field being stretched out through twice the area every 1,400 years.. Did you loose field? No; you gained area; giving the illusion of field reduction; the overall "mass" of field and attraction remaining constant..

Just as the Earths gravitational field is remaining constant I am claiming that the magnetic field is also remaining constant.. "But its half life is 1'400 years!!" Yes it is.. If you had a neodymium magnet and could blow it up like a balloon by expanding the atoms you could measure its strength with every doubleing of its' area and of course its localized strength, "the spot where u measure it" would be 1/2 of its' previous strength .. Overall, you still have the same amount of field, though its, "localized" strength had reduced by 1/2.

What does Earth's gravitational field have to do with radiometric dating? Do changes in ambient gravity alter the percentage of isotopic carbon present in a sample?

As this matter spreads out through decompression this carbon present, being part of the matter thinning out, is compounding the half life calculations.

Outside source: www.icr.org...
Working backwards in time many thousands of years, this equation yields an implausibly large value of the magnetic field and of the electrically generated heat stored in the earth's core. (See ICR Technical Monograph: Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field4) A reasonable postulate was shown therein to yield an upper age limit of 10,000 years.

No one knows for sure what causes the vortexes. Many theories; none proven that we know about. Field will compress itself under certain circumstances. Harnessing these circumstances is not something that I have worked on directly. However I have an explanation that coincides with this: en.wikipedia.org...

A gravitational vortex is an area that affects space time through compression and decompression of the Earths' gravitational field..

Exactly waht happens to, "matter" in these vortexes is something that I can only explain by the observation of matter being compressed or decompressed according to the gravitational field density that it is in.

Would you like to elaborate?

My work in this area is not all-together unique. Many people have work claiming that matter, light, space, and time are one in the same. This includes one of ur fav threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have a loTof work in this area. Though it goes hand in hand with the present subject, it is a thread of its own; more like a book. I have a simple experiment that I feel demonstrates the general movement of field; which implys the rest; eveN the totality of the matter and dark matter universe.. I will consider postinG on it..

Thank u for ur patience.. I hope I have clarified ur questions..

Originally posted by noconsequence
A gravitational vortex is an area that affects space time through compression and decompression of the Earths' gravitational field.

Thank you. That's helpful. You say you don't know what causes these vortices. Clearly they are localized in space. Are they also static?

The vortexes demonstrate the expansion and compression of matter.

In spacetime, or does spacetime also expand and contract under the influence of these vortices? In that case, how can we observe the expansion and compression? Can we?

I am saying that the depletion of the Earths' magnetic field is a direct result of its' matter expanding.

This would seem to imply that the vortex has no effect on spacetime (otherwise our instruments would be correspondingly affected); how can that be, if it's gravitational?

The matter is expanding because we are moving away from the denser field in the center of the galaxy.

It is my understanding that the sun orbits the Galactic centre in a nearly circular orbit at a speed of roughly 225 km/s. How then can it be moving away from the Galactic centre?

I am claiming that this measurement of the Earths' magnetic field half life is the direct result of this expansion. Thus the gravitational half-life is equal to the Earths' magnetic half-life.

As far as I know, the gravitational constant is... constant. I am aware of MOND and the issues with the Pioneer spaceprobes, but this is still a very grey area in which nobody knows anything much; it is certainly not a firm foundation for further theorizing. Are you saying that the expansion of space causes gravity to weaken?

As a result of this expansion you have the same field being stretched out through twice the area every 1,400 years. Did you loose field? No; you gained area; giving the illusion of field reduction; the overall "mass" of field and attraction remaining constant.

Does this mean you regard space as two-dimensional? If three-dimensional, then of course you would experience an eightfold increase in volume and a fourfold increase in surface area*.

Just as the Earths gravitational field is remaining constant I am claiming that the magnetic field is also remaining constant... with every doubleing of its area... "the spot where u measure it" would be 1/2 of its' previous strength .. Overall, you still have the same amount of field, though its "localized" strength had reduced by 1/2.

From what frame of reference would you be able to discern this? Not from within spacetime if this itself is subject to the same expansion, obviously - and if it isn't, wouldn't we readily perceive a reduction in gravity?

As this matter spreads out through decompression this carbon present, being part of the matter thinning out, is compounding the half life calculations.

But your measuring instruments are also expanding and 'thinning out', so how can this affect the readings?

I'm sorry for all the questions. I'm trying to understand. Perhaps another member with some knowledge of the subject could chime in?
*Crudely modelling the universe as a sphere... but you catch my drift.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Astyanax]

Hrm... for Gravitational half life's being well known and widely accepted like you imply...

a quick search on google.... (in quotes of course) yeilds 7 search results...

one of those results is this thread on ATS...

Not even a wikipedia entry...

Given some thought... in order for gravitational half lifes to even exist, Gravitons must exist...

But gravitons are a highly controversial theory and are NOT widely accepted...

even if by some fluke, someone proves they exist... it doesn't verify your "gravitational half-life"

However, to test graviton decay, would be exactly the same as testing as uraniaum/lead radiometrics.... therefore, using the exact same principals you just denounced...

This "theory" of yours is full of fail mate... sorry

Please be patient Astanax I am working on ur, questions; device videos, a presentation for an, "efficient" gyroscopic propulsion device and a lever that multiplys speed and power simultaneously, etc.; that I plan to disclose on the site.

It seems that I have Qed a few disinfo nuts with these pending actions. How can the harm they bring eveR be nothing compaired to what their gods of disinfo have done enough noW?

To respond to nj2day: You did not read my origonal post where I called it the, "new" gravitational half life?? That sounds as though I implied that it is well known and has been widely accepted?? Really??

So gravitons have to exist if the field of a magnet reduces in strength as you increase your distance from it?? It is as simple as that..

Don't worry, I aM covering all this in my response to Astanax here in what could be a few days as I have a web hangover right now.

Thank you for your posts.



[edit on 18-2-2009 by noconsequence]

Wow Astanax! ThanX for ur questions! It is obvious that you are in fact an asset to anyone you are working with in the area of your expertise to say the least. Now you have gone and done the right thing again and I will have to explain the reason behind the gravitational half life.

I see static as a field that has been broken out of a flowing field. ie When you pass a magnet through the prongs of a generator some of the field, not having time to flow back into the magnet is broken off. Its speed has, "basically" been reduced to zero. It then finds the malleable cohesive field of the copper and arcs back into its opposite. So in this respect I would have to say I do not believe it is not static.

How can we observe it? Good question! There are many scientists that claim that space, time, and matter are all one in the same. I agreE.. This being the case perhaps the answer could be as simple as beginning three, "timers" simultaneously; one in the center of the densist part of the vortex, one in the part of the least density, and one away from the influence alltogether. Let them run for a while, "a couple days or so" then bring them together and see if there is a notable difference between them.

Please clarify your next question. "This would seem to imply that the vortex has no effect on spacetime (otherwise our instruments would be correspondingly affected); how can that be, if it's gravitational?"

Page you referred me to says, "The Sun's orbital period is determined by the galaxy's mass within the orbit of the Sun." not its' relation to the precise y axis itself.. Think of a water sprayer that is spinning fairly quickly; the water is all flying out in a straight line away from the center, though it form swirls as a result of the spinning center.. According to my work and the work of everybody that says matter and light are one in the same, [Walter Russell; etc.] this is the case with a spiral galaxy.

By using the matter between our solar system and the galaxy center to measure the, "orbit" of the solar system you will get an, "illusion" of an orbit. As a result of the new matter thrown it will look like the galaxy is, "coming around" in an orbit. While in reality the solar systems are moving in a straight line away, being thrown from the center of the galaxy..

It is for this reason that this is said: "According to Newtonian mechanics, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit. At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center. Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat". " I edited it some; heres page: en.wikipedia.org...

The matter is moving away from denser field in center of the galaxy and into an ever decreasing galactic field density. This results in a gravitational half life that, "obviously" has absolutly nothing to do with gravitons. The gravitational constant appears to remain....constant. Your present weight would still be the same 1,400 years from now; however your mass would take up twice the, "volume" it does presently. Being within the influence you would not notice it.

I mean area as in, "volume". By doubling the planets' volume, the diameter is only expanded by 1.25992 times; not like a 2 inch cube doubled to a 4 inch cube.

I am thinking the most readily available observation point would be from a right angle in relation to the spin of a galaxy seeking to discover a distance gain of a star from the exact center of the galaxy, using the closest star that you can possibly find to the exact center.. Beaming in on that would probly be difficult. out of page room

[edit on 20-2-2009 by noconsequence]