Expando Planet Theory more likely than Nirubu/Planet X...and happening NOW?!!!!

reply to post by stereologist


You're technically right about granite, it's pore structure is low, BUT it's permeability can be quite high depending on how much it's fractured, and allow water through like rocks with a larger pore size.

That's why there can be things like granite aquifers, such as the Snake River aquifer in Idaho.

Associated with stones porosity is its permeability. This is the extent to which the pores and capillary structures are interconnected throughout the stone. These networks, their size, structure and orientation affect the degree and depth to which moisture, vapors and liquids can be absorb into the interior of the stone or migrate from the substrate by capillary action through the stone. Permeability may be greater in some directions than others based upon the pore size, shape and the distribution of the interconnectedness of the system.

Permeability is increased when a stone is highly fractured or the veining material is soft or grainy. A particular variety of stone may be highly permeable ( a well defined interconnected network of pores), although its porosity is low (a low percentage of voids).

The size and shapes of pores and the capillary structure differs in stones and is an important factor in relation to stone decay.

Please try to keep the insults out of it.

This is just a THEORY, like most other so-called facts that are out there and accepted as "cast in stone" until something else is learned that naturally fits into and connects the puzzle, instead of having to be forced into it.

Sometimes, two different theories are proposed for the same branch of study, and sometimes the more important institution or person's theory wins out, because of their prestige. Once a theory is established as fact, it becomes a foundation upon which a lot of peoples reputations are built, and then it's even harder for a new theory that fits better to be accepted.

Your dismissive, rude attitude is making it hard for people to listen to what you have to say, and it seems you are rather hide-bound in your thinking about certain subjects anyway.

Some of the stuff you have been presenting as fact, my research on the subject does not support across the board, such as the PERMEABILITY of granite.

I think you know that the original question was relating to, does granite let water get through, and the answer is YES, even though the pore size is small, the permeability can be much greater than stone with a much larger pore size. It all depends on where the granite is located, and how much fracturing, and weathering the stone has endured. Fracturing, and weathering can affect each type of stone differently.

Please stop calling people ignorant and stupid, there is no call for that.

If you don't like the theory, or think it's implausible, that's fine, no one says you have to believe it.

Let the rest of us who can see how the theory might work discuss it in peace without your insults. If you want to discuss it with us respectfully, I'd like to see you back up your statements with some links, proving your point. Otherwise you're just wasting our time.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by smurfy

 

I checked out your link. I checked into Robert Sloan. Did you?

SCIENCE WATCH; DEATH OF DINOSAURS ASSERTED TO BE GRADUAL

I looked all over the place for Sloan original paper and all I could find was your link that suggests a link to oxygen while nothing else associated with Sloan does. Do I smell a misrepresentation? I'd like to see Sloan original material and not someone claiming what he said.

I found the pdf in half a minute, and there was a research team involved, not Robert E. Sloan alone. If you have a problem with Mr Sloan, you have a problem with the whole team. You had asked for a link alluding to asserted temperatures, I gave you one, that wasn't good enough for you. Such pomposity, you didn't even realise that someone was trying to be helpful. So, if you think I'm going to post any more links for you, you can take a running jump....... right back to the Mesozoic.

reply to post by sezsue

Some of the stuff you have been presenting as fact, my research on the subject does not support across the board, such as the PERMEABILITY of granite.

I have made no statements concerning the permeability of rock regardless of the type of rock. The permeability of rock makes no difference when it comes to the expanding Earth theory.

Please stop calling people ignorant and stupid, there is no call for that.

Go back and read the posts. I have not stated that about any person. The only person stating such is another poster that has had their posts edited and sanctioned.

Let the rest of us who can see how the theory might work discuss it in peace without your insults. If you want to discuss it with us respectfully, I'd like to see you back up your statements with some links, proving your point. Otherwise you're just wasting our time.

The theory is an utter failure. I have pointed that out. No matter how much discussion there is about aquifers, the limited pore spaces in granites, or the permeability of fractured rocks, none of this supports the claim of an expanding Earth.

The problem with an expanding Earth is that new matter must be added. That needs to be substantiated by the people supporting this theory.

reply to post by smurfy

I found the pdf in half a minute, and there was a research team involved, not Robert E. Sloan alone. If you have a problem with Mr Sloan, you have a problem with the whole team. You had asked for a link alluding to asserted temperatures, I gave you one, that wasn't good enough for you. Such pomposity, you didn't even realise that someone was trying to be helpful. So, if you think I'm going to post any more links for you, you can take a running jump....... right back to the Mesozoic.

Where is the original article by Sloan and where in that article does it discuss the oxygen content of the Mesozoic?

All you do here is present no evidence and make an appeal to authority. The paper, where is the paper?

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by smurfy

 

I would be interested in reading about oxygen levels at the time of the dinosaurs. I do know that the levels were much higher earlier in the Earth's history. I thought levels were down before the Mesozoic era. Thanks for any links.

That's most likely what the debate is about. The Mesozoic era takes in several peroids I think. So how much oxygen transfer did the, (large) dino's need and how much did they get latterly? The thinking is that dino's needed high levels of oxygen like 35% and maybe they had little reserve in their lungs, although I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly about dino lungs. Then right through the era, if the research is correct, the oxygen levels were highly variable. So if you want to include a bolide from space, the dino's were most likely roasted, starved and suffocated. Here's one paper on it, to edit a blog rather,

dml.cmnh.org...

edit on 12-3-2011 by smurfy because: Text.

Okay... I'm not a paleontologist, but I have worked on dinosaurs for about 5 years in the paleontology labs where they're researching arctic dinosaurs. So I can answer some of this.

The oxygen levels changed at the time of the Permian extinction, 255 million years ago: www.spacedaily.com... However, this is the time when the archosaurs died and not the end of the dinosaurs (Cretaceous, 60 million years ago.)

Second, the number of Very Large Dinosaurs is small. People love spectacular things and huge sized beasts, but there's really only 9 titanosaurs (I'm working on a titanosaur, in fact) and a whopping lot of things that were horse sized or smaller. T. Rex, while large, is only 1/3 the size of the beast I'm working on (which is why it's taken 5 years to clean 14 vertebra out of the rock (and repair them, too.))

Third, the titanosaurs had a different type of respiratory system than mammals. It's more similar to birds and includes air sacs (and I've personally found some evidence of the air sacs and a lot of other structures that will be in the papers the paleontologists produce about this animal. My name goes as a footnote as the poor gazumba who spent 5 years working on the thing.) This is an article for kids, but it gets the point across without being overwhelmingly boring: www.scienceinafrica.co.za...

Fourth, lumping the geologic eras into "The Mesozoic" is not a good idea. Each period was marked by different climates due to the different position of the land masses. So, during the Cretaceous (a warmer time) there were hurricanes that made Katrina look like a spring thunderstorm. At the beginning and at the end of "the Mesozoic" there were large supervolcano fields that were spewing lavas (Siberian traps and Deccan traps, respectively) -- but the climate and impact of them were different.

If you're talking rocks, oxygen, weathering, and so forth, then you really need to talk about the individual periods and not just lump the eras.

Oxygen levels were on the rise toward the end of the Cretaceous, as small forbs, shrubs, and grass evolved and became common. The dinosaurs had already started to decline before the meteor hit, partly (it is suspected) because they couldn't digest the new plants. It took tons of plant material to feed a single titanosaur each day -- and grass just wasn't going to fill the bill (some grasses also takes longer to digest (if you're really interested, look up 'range management' and grass and deer. Deer will starve on grass that cows can eat -- no kidding.))

Somewhere I've got the figures for how much plant material is needed to support a large herbivore (and it could be extrapolated to dinosaurs.) But I'm not looking them up right now.

reply to post by stereologist

The oceans are relatively small and in a time of accretion could certainly have supplied all of the water we see today.

The oceans are not small and make up two thirds of the earths surface.The terrafirrma we inhabit is very small by comparison.The biological process alone is not the only process.Obviously the viewpoint I have expressed is of no relevance.However the planet ,lives and breathes just as we do and goes through iceages which causes a little death over thousands of years and renews the great rebirth.
It still baffles the most eminent as to how with the sun being realitively young ice ages occurring,recent intertellar observation are now answering that question.
The expanding earth theory is valid and this is because everything observed in the universe is expanding,our own sun will expand to within the orbit of earth,expanding before its demise.However when looking at galaxies we do not see this process because of the invisible black hole getting larger within.This then gives the illusion that the galaxies are not expanding.
i hope this helps thanks gringo.
peace

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by stereologist

 

You're technically right about granite, it's pore structure is low, BUT it's permeability can be quite high depending on how much it's fractured, and allow water through like rocks with a larger pore size.

That's why there can be things like granite aquifers, such as the Snake River aquifer in Idaho.

A bit misleading. Snake River Aquifer is "layered basalts" and the water is actually flowing along the interfaces ("interflow zones") of the layers where crumbly top basalt and pillow basalt encounters another layer of basaltic material.
Geologic features of Snake River Aquifer

If basalt was porous, we'd see the same kinds of caves and karst sinkholes in granites and basalts that we see in areas with limestone rocks (sandstone weathers differently, but even basalt doesn't weather in the same way as the porous sandstone.)

Another feature of porous rocks is that things (like salts and stains) leech into them or out of them. You don't get iron staining in the middle of a nice block of granite... but you do in sandstones and limestones and other porous rock.

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by stereologist

 

The oceans are not small and make up two thirds of the earths surface.

Can we add the word "currently" to that statement? In the past, things were much different.

It still baffles the most eminent as to how with the sun being realitively young ice ages occurring,recent intertellar observation are now answering that question.

Actually, the age of the sun has nothing to do with the ice ages. The orbit of the Earth does, however (Milankovitch cycles - en.wikipedia.org... ), something that scientists have known about for almost a hundred years. I'm not sure who "the most eminent" people are that you mention who are still baffled by this, but I hope you will introduce them to the work of that long-dead engineer who explained it.

The expanding earth theory is valid and this is because everything observed in the universe is expanding,our own sun will expand to within the orbit of earth,expanding before its demise.

But not from matter being added to it. That will be from the changes in the chemistry of the sun.

However when looking at galaxies we do not see this process because of the invisible black hole getting larger within.This then gives the illusion that the galaxies are not expanding.

Actually, the fact that they aren't expanding explains the observation that they ... aren't getting larger:
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

reply to post by stereologist


My granite counter top in my kitchen is porous. If I leave a glass of ice water on the counter, the condensation will create a ring of water that is absorbed into the granite below the surface. Same with marble. Ask and contractor, to avoid this granite counter tops are usually sealed with polyurethane.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by smurfy

 

All you do here is present no evidence and make an appeal to authority. The paper, where is the paper?

Sorry mate,
You blew it with me, look for it yourself. I'm not a [educaterer] SIC!

reply to post by Byrd


I agree ,however the universe is expanding and earth the sun the planets and their moons change according to inner and outer variations in the expanding interstellar medium..cogwheels within cogwheels the clockwork motions continually transferring expanding energy and recoiling gravity,remembering gravity being so weak.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sezsue

 

Some of the stuff you have been presenting as fact, my research on the subject does not support across the board, such as the PERMEABILITY of granite.

I have made no statements concerning the permeability of rock regardless of the type of rock. The permeability of rock makes no difference when it comes to the expanding Earth theory.

Please stop calling people ignorant and stupid, there is no call for that.

Go back and read the posts. I have not stated that about any person. The only person stating such is another poster that has had their posts edited and sanctioned.

Let the rest of us who can see how the theory might work discuss it in peace without your insults. If you want to discuss it with us respectfully, I'd like to see you back up your statements with some links, proving your point. Otherwise you're just wasting our time.

The theory is an utter failure. I have pointed that out. No matter how much discussion there is about aquifers, the limited pore spaces in granites, or the permeability of fractured rocks, none of this supports the claim of an expanding Earth.

The problem with an expanding Earth is that new matter must be added. That needs to be substantiated by the people supporting this theory.

The theory is an utter failure. I have pointed that out. No matter how much discussion there is about aquifers, the limited pore spaces in granites, or the permeability of fractured rocks, none of this supports the claim of an expanding Earth. The problem with an expanding Earth is that new matter must be added. That needs to be substantiated by the people supporting this theory.

The theory is an utter failure. I have pointed that out

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us what makes the theory an utter failure. You pointed that out, so what.

Provide some links please, showing how the theory is a failure.

In the meantime, I have enjoyed doing some research into some aspects of the theory, and I can see how there is some science supporting the theory.

So I'm just going to give you a synopsis of what I found out that supports the theory without detail, with out links, just like you, and then you can show me how what I'm saying is impossible. Or, you can research it yourself and then dispute what I say.

Scientists are saying that space is full of plasma, particles, which they say comes from the sun (and which would include stars, since they are suns) and that these suns are constantly belching out plasma and particles which contain minerals, and water, in the form of CME's and so on. (I actually gave you a link about the fact that recently scientists discovered the sun contains WATER in a prior post, which you ignored and did not try to refute.) Stars are constantly being created. If star are fueling the creation of each other, they are probably fueling the creation of planets.

Scientists say that earth and the other planets are constantly being bombarded by what is coming from the sun and the other stars. That means earth and the others are constantly being bombarded with matter from space which includes minerals such as iron and sulpher, and gasses such as neon, oxygen and helium, and all the components needed to create water, amongst many other elements.

If we are being constantly bombarded with elements, including minerals such as carbon, iron, and sulpher, and silicates, amongst others, and gases such as neon, helium, and oxygen, amongst others, then over millions of years, there would be layers added to the earth and other planets. These elements are of such a small nature that they could be absorbed by the planets, gradually seeping out or being extruded up through the sea floor in a process that is not understood yet.

Earth's water, minerals, and oxygen are created through this process. This happens where the earths crust is thin, such as where earths plates join, or the Ocean ridges. Scientists have discovered zebra type stripe patterns, on either side of Ocean Ridges, where the magnetic polarity changes in every other stripe, and the age of the floor increases the further from the opening. This indicates magnetic pole flips. This could be where the plasma core comes in, but it could be a combination of different processes that we don't know about. Scientists have made plasma from water, for example, and so it stands to reason that the process could be reversed, again, in a process we don't know about yet.

Scientists think the earths core may be iron or iron/nickel/sulpher combination, but don't really know for sure.
We really don't know how the process of the core, outer core, mantle work, we only have theories at this point and I don't see how we can ever totally know for sure. We can only hypothesize and spectulate, and come up with theories.

This expansion process would be so gradual for most of the time, but would come to a point where an increased burst of energy from the sun, and other stars would infuse the whole system, causing a violent outburst, such as earthquakes, volcanoes erupting, cracks developing in the earth, sinkholes forming, and with such activity increasing and coming to a crescendo.

The problems Japan is going through right now is a pretty good example of the expansion theory at work.

Scientists are saying that all the planets are becoming energized, and undergoing something right now.

reply to post by sezsue

The planets are being energized because the sun is heading into a different constituent proton cloud region within the milky way that very soon will explain the ice age and also the extreme low cycles the sun goes through that causes this.
Hence the suns low unpredicted output and being one year late in what was thought the begining of the solar cycle.This cycle has begun but with high energy x-rays bursts not as many sunspots as would have been predicted,the continued recoiling of the suns energy does not forebode well,although eventually it will rebound but much more feroiushishly,but in the long term indicates longer cycles,in otherwords the cycles not being 11 years.and yes affecting earth,causing partial iceage,massive ice flow tundras that will move and resculpture all rock,minerals and matter into a new form in those regions.
The planet freezes,contracts and then melts expands or rather this process of contraction with expanding water stretches matter and melts after it has stretched the earths crust,hence expanding earth.Water expands when frozen and forms part of the process but not the whole
Synapses working now
Thanks gringo .and you are all welcome,straight to the top OP,this is afterall the revelation,the revealing.

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by stereologist

 

My granite counter top in my kitchen is porous. If I leave a glass of ice water on the counter, the condensation will create a ring of water that is absorbed into the granite below the surface. Same with marble. Ask and contractor, to avoid this granite counter tops are usually sealed with polyurethane.

edit on 3/13/2011 by Missing Blue Sky because: (no reason given)

Hi blue,
That's because granite is porous, much less than other rock, but it is technically correct to say it is porous. My undestanding is that there are tiny "pits" or gaps between the large crystals, and also natural fissures or veins in granite from its formation and slow cooling, those are not cracks or deformations from fast cooling, I would suppose the variety of the materials in the composition would be a variable as well, but I am just supposing there.

This interested me;

I went to the USGS earthquake site (earthquake.usgs.gov...):

EToday's Earthquake Fact
The oldest rocks on Earth are found on land. Since the ocean floor is being continually regenerated as the continental plates move across the Earth's surface, the oldest rocks on the ocean floor are less than 300 million years. In contrast, the oldest continental rocks are 4,500 million years old.

Why is this? Wouldn't continental rock also be regenerated as the plates move?

I am not a scientist. Any explanation that goes against my current idea; "Expando Planet"; the Earth was smaller at one time, the continents drifted apart as the Earth grew and the oceans formed.

reply to post by CVinWA

Exactly,water appears and the land ,above sea level remains older whilst the sea constantly is renewed,rocks are different there because they were never there in the first place,they were on land.The others that are found ,were deposited through the glacial periods.
Thanks gringo,peace

More revelations to come,sorry if anyone is offfended by the vid,afterall it is only a representation,but evidence is evident .Historically we did throw rocks at the moon,worshiped the moon and then went there so we did`nt need to worship it anymore,its just there.Infact the moon is expanding away from the earth each year so even more evidence,need I say more.scientific theories are backed up by observation.Can you see it ,get ready for the next contractive iceage and expansion of frozen water into a new mother earth on melting
Welcome to your fragile earth or is it.

Consciousness just got expanded

reply to post by gringoboy


Allow me to clarify my position. Relative to the size of the Earth the oceans are small. Even though by surface area they cover approximately 69% of the surface, they are a small portion of the mass and volume of the Earth.

The expanding earth theory is valid and this is because everything observed in the universe is expanding,our own sun will expand to within the orbit of earth,expanding before its demise.However when looking at galaxies we do not see this process because of the invisible black hole getting larger within.This then gives the illusion that the galaxies are not expanding.
i hope this helps thanks gringo.

Not all things are expanding. The only reason the sun would expand is that the fusion fuel would change. The sun's size only changes because material is blown out due to the increase temperature of the reactions. Unlike the Earth, the sun is not solid. The solid Earth does not increase in size. The expanding Earth theory is not valid.

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


As has been posted here time and time again the porosity is due to small cracks formed during the cooling of the magma. The cracks are from shrinkage. The available pore space in granite is minuscule. Not all granites are the same. Cheaper granites are being dumped on the market and they are more likely to exhibit these small fractures and contain mafics more prone to weathering.

reply to post by smurfy


I'm sorry you feel the need to avoid support your own claims. I called your bluff and you folded. That's okay.

reply to post by sezsue

Provide some links please, showing how the theory is a failure.

It is the onus of the claimant to support their position. It is your responsibility to support the expanding Earth theory. I don't have to run around getting links to show how silly it is. So far the supporters of this theory have failed to provide evidence that it works.

I can see how there is some science supporting the theory.

Nothing supporting the theory has been posted so far. Claims of expansion have not been substantiated. The claimed mechanisms cannot possibly work.

Scientists are saying that space is full of plasma, particles ...

In this paragraph is a lot of information. None of the information supports an expanding Earth. If there are molecules near the sun so what. How does any of that support an expanding Earth?

Scientists say that earth and the other planets are constantly being bombarded by what is coming from the sun and the other stars. ...

Nothing in this paragraph supports the claim that the Earth is expanding. Look at the moon. There is no erosion there and yet there is a thin layer of dust from accretion.

If we are being constantly bombarded with elements ...

The next paragraph again does not show how or if the materials add to the mass of the Earth.

Earth's water, minerals, and oxygen are created through this process. This happens where the earths crust is thin, such as where earths plates join, or the Ocean ridges.

Nothing in this paragraph supports anything other than plate tectonics. This does not support an expanding Earth. This paragraph purposely avoids mentioning subduction zones and the existence of rocks from the closing of the Tethys and other ancient oceans.

We can only hypothesize and spectulate, and come up with theories.

Theories are based on facts. Theories are tested by making predictions to see if the theories hold.

This expansion process would be so gradual for most of the time, but would come to a point where an increased burst of energy from the sun, and other stars would infuse the whole system, causing a violent outburst, such as earthquakes, volcanoes erupting, cracks developing in the earth, sinkholes forming, and with such activity increasing and coming to a crescendo.

The problems Japan is going through right now is a pretty good example of the expansion theory at work.

Japan experienced an event occurring at a subduction zone. This is an example of an event at a geological feature that shows that the expansion claim is false.

The 03/11/2011 earthquake (preliminary magnitude 8.9) near the east coast of Honshu, Japan, occurred as a result of thrust faulting on or near the subduction zone interface plate boundary between the Pacific and North America plates.

Tectonic Summary

This type of quake at a subduction zone is where the Pacific plate, thus the Pacific Ocean are getting smaller.

The Japan Trench subduction zone has hosted 9 events of magnitude 7 or greater since 1973. The largest of these was an M 7.8 earthquake approximately 260 km to the north of the March 11 event, in December 1994, which caused 3 fatalities and almost 700 injuries. In June of 1978, an M 7.7 earthquake 35 km to the southwest caused 22 fatalities and over 400 injuries.

Earthquakes at spreading ridges are common, but of low energy. Subduction zone quakes are high energy.