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

reply to post by gringoboy


What does that have to do with anything? If you look back over the peer reviewed journals you can easily find all sorts of articles discussing whether or not dinosaurs and birds are related.
The bird dinosaur link is real science unlike the fake expando whatever you want to call the fantasy.

Gringo has brought up the issue of birds and dinosaurs. Here are some example publications of soneone who disputed the link:

Feduccia, A. 1994. The great dinosaur debate. Living Bird 13(4): 28-33.

Jones, T. D., J. Ruben, L. D. Martin, E. V. Kurochkin, A. Feduccia, P. F. A. Maderson, W. J. Hellenius, N. R. Gesit, and V. Alifanov. 2000. Nonavian feathers in a late Triassic archosaur. Science 288: 2202-2205. (Commentary: Feathers, or flight of fancy?. by E. Stokstad, 2124-2125).

Feduccia, A. 2001. The problem of bird origins and early avian evolution. Journal fur Ornithologie (in press). Plenary lecture for the 150th anniversary of the German Ornithological Society, Leipzig, October, 2000.

When there are new ideas there are those publish for and those that publish against.

If the expando doohicky were being studied by scientists then we'd see the same sort of back and forth in the journals. We do not see anything at all. That tells us that real scientists do not take the claim seriously, because there is no evidence to suggest this doohicky.

reply to post by stereologist


So we have something expanding the universe but not earth,equal and opposite reaction,this is physics,if the universe is expanding then matter like a matrix net will expand,therefore the earth,however contraction exists also,like your beating heart,this is the true nature of life as we all get older our hearts get larger,simple observable physics ,the answer is insde your own existence.
Sorry but your publications are 1994 and 2001 pre the post date above 2010.Wat gives ,nothing presumably,nothing learned obviously.
You obviously fail to see the universe is expanding and eventually all matter will stretch and evaporate like a black hole ,although gravity will remain as constant ,as it can be in the dance of cosmic forces and potentially become stronger as the ultimate stretch of universe pushes towards the next event(millions of years away).
The nature of earth is in defiance to expand via gravity but that does not mean it is not expanding,evidence posted by many members indicate so and seen as atoms are not solid and can change to suite any environment it is not implausable within recent research.
Peace gringo..

reply to post by gringoboy


Putting a 2010 limit on a peer reviewed publication - LAUGHABLE!

You can't show anything at all - nada, zippo, nil, nothing!

You're also very confused on physics if you think that the expansion of the universe has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's law does not apply because you are talking apples and oranges.

reply to post by stereologist


To the contrary in all members previous posts.
Nothing learned ,nothing gained,,nothing is set in stone only monuments.Laughable ,now that is hot air

Originally posted by stereologist
Gringo has brought up the issue of birds and dinosaurs. Here are some example publications of soneone who disputed the link:

Actually, the current consensus is that they evolved from theropods and more specifically from the velociraptors (just had a class in ornithology.) However, these links speak AGAINST the "expando earth" theory.

If there was an "expando earth" then the continents would have separated fairly early so that we couldn't find species of the same dinosaur on different continents. T. Rex could not have been found in Texas AND Mongolia under the "expandoEarth" theory UNLESS the planet suddenly started expanding AFTER the end of the Cretaceous (and for no apparent reason) because Mongolia and Texas are rather far apart. www.enchantedlearning.com...

And Stegosaurus would have been globally distributed, with fossils in Antarctica and South America (where they are not found) and Australia (ditto) www.enchantedlearning.com...

Of course, the problem with Stegosaurus and other dinosaurs is that if the Earth's continents are so jammed together that Stegosaurus can walk from Mongolia to the Western US... then there wouldn't have been any oceans. No oceans means no rainfall. No rainfall means no water. No water means no sea beds. No water means... dinosaurs didn't drink.

And this is very much at odds with the evidence of sea life at (and before) the time that Stegosaurus lived.

ExpandoEarth also doesn't explain how the salt domes got into the middle of Texas and Arabia and other locations that are never shown underwater in ExpandoEarth.

Nor does it explain how and why we can find sea shells preserved in limestone all around the world. Limestone only forms in the ocean.

reply to post by Byrd


All life came from the sea, correct or incorrect?

If all life came from the sea, then we could assume that at one point Earth was completely covered in water, correct or incorrect?

If Earth was completely covered in water we would have to assume either two things about Earth;
1)The water level has stayed the same, but the land mass has expanded, opening new deep oceans for the water
or
2)The water level has been decreasing for billions of years, exposing the land mass

correct or incorrect?

NOTE: I am not an expert. This is an opinion. I cannot provide scientifically accepted "facts" to prove my opinions. Please be kind when you debunk my opinion.

reply to post by gringoboy


Since you have been unable to point to anything at all to support the expanding earth claim it is DOA.

Nothing has been published on the subject in peer reviewed journals. That says it all.

reply to post by Byrd

ExpandoEarth also doesn't explain how the salt domes got into the middle of Texas and Arabia and other locations that are never shown underwater in ExpandoEarth.

What an excellent example. I never thought of that. Thanks.

reply to post by CVinWA

If all life came from the sea, then we could assume that at one point Earth was completely covered in water, correct or incorrect?

Life in fresh water appears to be later than life in the oceans and complex life certainly was first in the oceans.

My guess is that land was essential for life in the oceans because it provides sendentary species to develop within the lit portions of the ocean depth. A life form does not have to be able to float, a requirement in open water. It can be on the bottom and still receive energy from the sun.

Originally posted by CVinWA
reply to post by Byrd

 

All life came from the sea, correct or incorrect?

Correct.

If all life came from the sea, then we could assume that at one point Earth was completely covered in water, correct or incorrect?

Incorrect. The Earth is 70% water surface. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested it was totally covered with water and nothing else... if anything, there was initially no water. Water was added by comet bombardments.

If Earth was completely covered in water we would have to assume either two things about Earth;
1)The water level has stayed the same, but the land mass has expanded, opening new deep oceans for the water
or
2)The water level has been decreasing for billions of years, exposing the land mass

Yes... and again, this points out the flaws in the "expando earth" idea. So do the shape of the rock layers (and the types of rock. Take a look at this crossection of East Texas: www.colorado.edu...

Pecan Gap chalk and Austin Chalk are both limestone formations (formed under earth.) Notice there's a big layer of clay between them. Below Austin Chalk is the Eagle Ford shale, some marls, other clays and shales and then a THIRD layer of limestone... with more stuff below. The map is accurate and comes from drilling for oil wells in the area (so we have drill cores showing what rock is where.)

"Expando-earth" can't account for how sponges got on top of Capitan Reef, one of the tallest "mountains" in Texas. (pretty pictures of it here: www.nps.gov... and the Wikipedia article on the Delaware basin here: en.wikipedia.org...

I had a thought last night...


What about gravity? I mean, the planet was formed several billion years ago, right? And since then, has gravity stopped working? Or is new material constantly being added to the planet?

So, expando planet theory might hold some ground, eh?

reply to post by Byrd


You keep claiming that the Expanding Earth theory can't explain these things, but it can.

A large portion of the Earth could have been covered in water when Earth was much smaller. The expanding Earth theory doesn't deny that there are crustal plates, nor are the two concepts exclusive.

As far as birds descending from dinosaurs, didn't they connect modern chickens to T-rex through DNA?

reply to post by stereologist


Have you conclusively provided any irrefutable evidence the whole previous pages,there are plenty of previous posts by myself and others ,so you need to be peer reviewed to be correct,thats when several people collectively agree ohh... yes we will go with this then,so then if the earth does not expand to defy gravity in your sublducting theory (contemporary)over the millions of years the earth would have shrunk,maybe you should start a thread on the incredibly shrinking earth,you fail to see the full dynamic of the earth and its place in a accelerating expanse of universe,expanding and contracting.
You have added nothing by way of knowledge about the true dynamics of earth,if it does`nt expand then it must shrink,so come on don`t deny even that ,and thus, in reality,repeat reality the earth expands and shrinks in a equalibrium of external expansion and gravitational constant,that varies as our mother earth traverses space.Hence earthquakes

Off course the earth was completely covered in water,the snowball earth and oh.no that is not real either
www.newscientist.com...

Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?

650 000 000 years ago a iceage and the earth moves 15cms away from the sun per year thats 97,500km/60583 miles of the Asronomical unit of 93 million miles closer to the sun,not to mention the previous ones.[

Originally posted by Byrd

ExpandoEarth also doesn't explain how the salt domes got into the middle of Texas and Arabia and other locations that are never shown underwater in ExpandoEarth.

Nor does it explain how and why we can find sea shells preserved in limestone all around the world. Limestone only forms in the ocean.

I agree, the expanding earth theory doesnt touch upon the water level. If they were to make a model of expando earth they should show that the water level would be much greater on a smaller earth and as it expanded the water level would go down. Geologists have proven this. ( the sea level being much greater). When I was in the Altay mountains in China staking geology claims, I would frequently find sea shells almost 4km's abouve sea level.
Expanding earth can explain a lot. They dont find dinosaur bones in the ocean or on the coasts. They find aquatic dinosaurs in Alberta, Texas, Arizona etc. ( these are theories, not fact.)

When the earth was small it froze over. Snowball earth. The crust cracked and the earth expanded. Some ice melted and fell into the massive cracks causing much steam the covered the globe. It rained. As the earth expanded there were shallow seas. As the ice melted even more so due to the positioning of the continents, the oceans filled up. This ice can still be seen on top of Antarctica.

I have a theory that the million year old ice was always drawn the south pole. When the water levels were high the continent of Antarctica slid under the million year old ice and as the earth expanded more the water level came down, resting the ancient ice on top of Antarctica. Just a thought.

I am in contact with some geologists and we are going through some material and running some models that shows that west coast of North America was connected to Asia at the Pacific. There is no argument over the joining of south america and Africa at the Atlantic but this also happened in the pacific.

Pangaea theory is bunk or false. The theory always shows America and Asia as separate continents which is not true at all. They are one continent and has always been. Pangaea shows that the continents drift apart and one day they will crash into each other again. Silly and unproven.

You can tell the people involved in proposing the Pangaea theory have never studied a bathymetric map because they didn't exist back in 1915. Also they are used to looking at political maps that show the continents as separate, north america on the left and Asia on the right. Separate... this is so wrong is almost sad that people considered these thoughts.

Here is the map. As you can see the this map proves Pangaea theory false. Study it.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Ah, so you are actually a geologist. No wonder I kept thinking you were so knowledgeable on the subject.

Cool avatar.

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by smurfy

 

Yes, gravity effects were mentioned in the article.

There is a theory, I think the 'Electric Universe', that states gravity is only our planet expanding underneath us. Everyone, well, some, has been trying to find 'gravity waves' or some solid explanation of gravity. What if there IS no gravity, and it is just Earth expanding quickly? Us, as well. Everything.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Ah, so you are actually a geologist. No wonder I kept thinking you were so knowledgeable on the subject.

Cool avatar.

I am not a Geologists but a claim staker. I stake mining/geology claims. Used to anyways. I have see, some great areas around the world. Some geologists that I have spoke to around the world are leaning towards expanding earth theory because it answers so many unanswered questions that is still a mystery with geologists.

Thanks for the posts. I was thinking of the snowball earth then you posted the vid. Nice. There is so much to learn about our history.

Originally posted by Gregarious

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by smurfy

 

Yes, gravity effects were mentioned in the article.

There is a theory, I think the 'Electric Universe', that states gravity is only our planet expanding underneath us. Everyone, well, some, has been trying to find 'gravity waves' or some solid explanation of gravity. What if there IS no gravity, and it is just Earth expanding quickly? Us, as well. Everything.

Seriously?

I had the thought years ago that our planet is exploding like a balloon popping but we dont see this because we as humans are living in a micro slice of time. 500 million years is really 0.00000000000001 seconds in the universe or less. I thought of this when i was trying to think of what gravity is. Interesting you said it too.