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

reply to post by gringoboy

This is true thats why the earth is moving 15cm a year away from the sun,moving orbit gradually at the present.

What are you suggesting is the cause? It has been established as a tidal interaction.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

I like this map a lot. North America fits in nice to Asia. The continents were also connected at the Pacific.

You can like that image, it's not a map, all you want. It is still a fantasy image from a fantasy world that has never existed and will never exist.

You might want to check on the local plate motions to see how Japan looked in the past and how the coast of California is changing due to the San Andreas. The Hawaiian chain has evolved over time. You need to find out what was there at times in the past.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by oshdra

 

Did you read Esker's material? He does not support an expando doohickey idea.

....

If you want to reference his material make sure that he follow through on his thought processes and donot misrepresent his position.

Oh man, you really make up your mind, don't you? The problem with that is that you are set on your vision, and good reason won't matter.

Who said Esker supported the Earth expand theory?? Certainly I did not.

It is very comfortable for you to commit to an ad hominen falacy instead of bringing real facts.

reply to post by zcflint05


yes but one thing that has been proved is the shifting poles this could explain just about everything that is trying to be explained

reply to post by oshdra


So you linked to Esker and then quoted some of the initial material from Esker and now you are saying that expando doohicky has nothing to do with Esker?

I'll accept that since he clearly is talking about other issues.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by oshdra

 

So you linked to Esker and then quoted some of the initial material from Esker and now you are saying that expando doohicky has nothing to do with Esker?

I'll accept that since he clearly is talking about other issues.

I quoted some mainstream material related with well know dinosaur physiology issues. My point being: such issues are addressed by the earth expand theory. Of course, there are many possible explanations. Nobody denies that, the author surely has its own. BUT earth expand theory is a nice answer. Could you address that?

I agree this is not proof of anything. But being you so certain, then I expect YOU to prove the earth is not expanding.

reply to post by randyful

yes but one thing that has been proved is the shifting poles this could explain just about everything that is trying to be explained

Are you referring to the shifting magnetic poles? How does a change in the magnetic poles affect anything other than compasses?

reply to post by oshdra

BUT earth expand theory is a nice answer. Could you address that?

What is there to address? So dinosaurs were large animals.

According to Esker the solution he derives to allow a large animal size conflicts with the expando doohicky. A smaller planet would have a thinner atmosphere. Expando is a nonstarter in this case.

I agree this is not proof of anything. But being you so certain, then I expect YOU to prove the earth is not expanding.

I don't have to prove anything. I do offer evidence something no support of expando has. The simple evidence is that there is mechanism to add mass tot he Earth to increase the size.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by oshdra

 

According to Esker the solution he derives to allow a large animal size conflicts with the expando doohicky. A smaller planet would have a thinner atmosphere. Expando is a nonstarter in this case.

For your answer is obvious you didn't get Esker explanation. A smaller planet would have less gravity so that IS a possible explanation. For some good reasons Esker prefers to say that the earth had a denser atmosphere (the OTHER good possible explanation).

I don't have to prove anything. I do offer evidence something no support of expando has. The simple evidence is that there is mechanism to add mass tot he Earth to increase the size.

I suppose you intended to wrote "is that there is NO mechanism to add mas to the Earth"... right?

I am quite sure that is not a proof, is an opinion, and just an opinion. For we to not know something does not mean that something do not exist. People in Pomepeya didn't have a word for volcano and they still died from a volcano eruption.

So, you don't have any conclusive fact.

Relative to Esker thoughs in the previously quoted article the author proposes an explanation: Paradox Solution

That is resumed in this idea:

This says that to produce the necessary buoyancy so that the dinosaurs could grow to their exceptional size, the density of the Earth’s air near the Earth’s surface would need to be 2/3’s of the density of water.

But the author did consider the earth expand theory, and discard it because:

About 4.6 billion years ago, in the earliest stages of the birth of the Earth, the mass of the Earth grew rapidly as it, along with the other planets, swept up the debris of the early solar system. However relatively quickly, within a matter of the first several million years, almost every possible collision between objects that could have occurred, would and did occur. So for all practical purposes, the mass of the Earth has been constant for billions of years. The physical evidence supporting this last statement comes from the study of the craters left on the planets and moons, in particular we can learn about the Earth by studying the Moon.

So we have two very concrete points to work with:

1. Is there any other mean to confirm the evolution of air density??
2. Is there any other mechanics for a planet to gain mass?

Notice that the author discard the earth expand theory because the only grow planet mechanism we know is debris gathering. With only that mechanism then we got left with air density variation as an explanation for dinosaur paradox.

Of course, the author do not give any explanation, theory or proof for the air density to change, and cliff and friends do provided a new theory for explain mass gain ( in fact two: neutrinos a zero point energy).

So I think this matter is far from being set.

Also we are able to study air evolution thanks to the ancient ice layers in the poles. Can somebody confirm if the air density in the mesozoic or the jurasic is a know data?? If this data is know then we have a winner %)

reply to post by stereologist


when the poles shift it disrupts the earths crust the crust has to move olong with the pole minor shifting is one thing but major shifting would cause numorus problems earth quakes falling and raising ocean levels volcanic eruptions ect. such as we are seeing an uptick in now there are other threads at this site pertaining to this my family and I are pretty avid boaters and offshore fisherman and we have noticed sbstantial differances in the readings we get from both gps and compases

reply to post by oshdra

For your answer is obvious you didn't get Esker explanation. A smaller planet would have less gravity so that IS a possible explanation. For some good reasons Esker prefers to say that the earth had a denser atmosphere (the OTHER good possible explanation).

Quite untrue. I did read Esker and I got it. A smaller planet would mean a less dense atmosphere.

Esker provides his line of reasoning using evidence. So far there is no evidence to suggest a smaller Earth. There is no way to increase the mass of the Earth to go from a lesser gravity situation to a greater gravity situation.

The expando is a non answer. It is not a good or even feeble suggestion. It is dead in the water.

I suppose you intended to wrote "is that there is NO mechanism to add mas to the Earth"... right?

Thanks for pointing out a mistake in my typing.

People in Pomepeya didn't have a word for volcano and they still died from a volcano eruption.

The word for volcano does not exist as you point out. The people of Pompeii and Herculaneum still knew about volcanoes. Etna was a well known event. Vesuvius was active before the eruption that destroyed Pompeii. Despite the lack of a word in Latin, that does not suggest that the people were unaware of volcanic activity. There was plenty of evidence for these events.

There is no evidence that the Earth is expanding.

So we have two very concrete points to work with:

1. Is there any other mean to confirm the evolution of air density??
2. Is there any other mechanics for a planet to gain mass?

1. I simply don't believe that the air density as proposed would allow life to form. At far lesser densities you end up with oxygen burns on tissue. All divers are aware of this issue which limits the depth of dives without special air mixtures.

2. That is the job of the expando Earth supporters to supply. So far nothing plausible has been offered.

Of course, the author do not give any explanation, theory or proof for the air density to change, and cliff and friends do provided a new theory for explain mass gain ( in fact two: neutrinos a zero point energy).

Clif makes up a lot of hooey. Neutrinos do not readily react with matter. This is just another implausible hooey claim he tosses out that has no basis in science.

So I think this matter is far from being set.

The deal is to provide a mechanism. So far nothing plausible has been offered.

On top of that there is a need to show that the Earth is actually increasing in size
There is also a need to show why the Moon and Mars do not show signs of increasing in size.

Also we are able to study air evolution thanks to the ancient ice layers in the poles.

The poles do not go back far enough.

Also, bubbles in salt crystals do not show evidence of high pressure.

reply to post by randyful

when the poles shift it disrupts the earths crust the crust has to move olong with the pole minor shifting is one thing but major shifting would cause numorus problems earth quakes falling and raising ocean levels volcanic eruptions ect. such as we are seeing an uptick in now there are other threads at this site pertaining to this my family and I are pretty avid boaters and offshore fisherman and we have noticed sbstantial differances in the readings we get from both gps and compases

Thanks.
Pole shifts do not happen. There has not been a pole shift in 200My. That is well established in the geological record. A recent suggestion of one 84Ma was shown to be wrong.

The latter discussion was in peer reviewed journal articles.

A pole shift did happen about 800Ma during the last snowball Earth event.

Pole shifts as described by Hancock do not happen. ECDs do not happen. Pole shifts detected by geologists are movements on the order of 1m a year.

reply to post by sezsue


i like this post i shall star and flag

but....
the earth cannot get more mass than what it already has therefore it cannot get larger unless it gets more mass from outside objects (meteors/asteroids)

when you say land is rising/falling it happens all the time thanks to the techtonic plates moving

they crash into each other and one goes up and one goes down (meaning land rises and falls) sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly

for instance an earthquake can sometimes be followed by a volcano eruption since the plate the goes under another and is forced into the mantle taking ocean water with it what under the extremes of pressure/heat in the mantle becomes steam

the steam creates its own pressure (like how steam engines are driven) and erupts a volcano somewhere

it can also work in reverse... like a volcano could erupt and the mantle pressure could lower slightly then suck some techtonic plate down to compensate causing an earthquake

when scientist say earth is getting say x amount of cm/3 larger you have to think they have only been able to measure this for not very long at all
maybe in a few years time from now they will say the planet has shrunk a little

maybe after the mantle has finished compensating the pressure inbalance

reply to post by stereologist

Surely you are not suggestung the moon is pulling the water tides and earth away from the sun,the moon does have less mass you know ,what are you implying because it seems like nonsense the moon can`t pull the earth from the sun,this is due to my earlier posts the expanding medium of the universe.

Originally posted by stereologist reply to post by gringoboy

 

This is true thats why the earth is moving 15cm a year away from the sun,moving orbit gradually at the present.

What are you suggesting is the cause? It has been established as a tidal interaction.

Be serious ,tidal interactions,in stereo mode ,gringo.

Originally posted by Insearchofthetruth1987
reply to post by sezsue

 

the earth cannot get more mass than what it already has therefore it cannot get larger unless it gets more mass from outside objects (meteors/asteroids)

That is a completely false statement. Imagine blowing a balloon or putting a sealed bag in the microwave. It will expand with no meteors hitting it. Many things are at play. The earth core could be expanding. There is thermal expansion, neutrinos, and other unknown forces acting on the earth.

Originally posted by stereologist

Thanks.
Pole shifts do not happen. There has not been a pole shift in 200My.

A pole shift did happen about 800Ma during the last snowball Earth event.

These time frames fit perfect with the expanding earth theory and of coarse the "poles" shift during these events (depending on your definition). Maybe the poles dont shift but the continents do.

Originally posted by stereologist
Quite untrue. I did read Esker and I got it. A smaller planet would mean a less dense atmosphere.

That is not Esker's point. Esker point is: FOUR possible ways to explain dinosaur paradox:

1. Variation on universal G constant
2. Variation on Earth radio
3. Variation on Earth mass
4. Variation on Air density

As far as mainstream science is concerned, one of this four possibilities must solve dinosaur paradox. Please, notice that Earth expand theory is option number 3.
Esker discard options 1 to 3 with different arguments. My point being option 3 is so legit that even mainstream science take it into account.

Esker provides his line of reasoning using evidence. So far there is no evidence to suggest a smaller. Earth.

Dinosaur paradox IS a suggestion on smaller Earth.

There is no way to increase the mass of the Earth to go from a lesser gravity situation to a greater gravity situation.

As this is your statement, you are the one that need to prove this to be the case.

The expando is a non answer. It is not a good or even feeble suggestion. It is dead in the water.

Esker discard it because there is no explicit know mechanism to gain mass outside debris gathering. But that does not prove it doesn't exist.

There is no evidence that the Earth is expanding.

No? There are phenomena that may be explained by this theory:
-Cracks and sink holes appearing around the world
-The difference in the age of the seafloor around the world
-The dinosaur paradox
-The fact pacific coasts fix between them the same way the Atlantic costs do.

. Neutrinos do not readily react with matter.

They do not interact electromagnetically, but they sure do interact. The neutrino detectors on deep earth has been successful at proving this.

This is just another implausible hooey claim he tosses out that has no basis in science.

You wish

The deal is to provide a mechanism. So far nothing plausible has been offered.

Also you has not made any attempt to prove the Earth is not expanding. Remember,
Lack of proof is not proof of the opposite

There is also a need to show why the Moon and Mars do not show signs of increasing in size.

Well, I don't know, I have seen some articles claiming they do. Sorry for the lack of links.

The poles do not go back far enough.

Then, Esker do not have absolute proof to categorically state it was the air density and not gravity the decisive factor to solve dinosaur paradox.

Also, bubbles in salt crystals do not show evidence of high pressure.

Super! that is point for the Earth expand theory!!! You just bring an excellent argument to show Esker is wrong!
Thank you!

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

But it can't explain layers that could have only formed under the ocean covered by layers that only form on land covered by layers of rock that can only form under the ocean (a layer of sandstone sandwiched by two limestone layers.) Nor does it explain how Salzburg and the salt mines that are in the middle of Germany:
www.salzburg.info...

...and so on and so forth.

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

Yes, but better data shows the velociraptors (also related to T Rex) are a more immediate ancestor than T Rex.

Originally posted by Byrd

But it can't explain layers that could have only formed under the ocean covered by layers that only form on land covered by layers of rock that can only form under the ocean (a layer of sandstone sandwiched by two limestone layers.)

Changing levels of water level can explain that. And water level can change a lot. We do not need tectonics for that... do we?

Nor does it explain how Salzburg and the salt mines that are in the middle of Germany:
www.salzburg.info...

...and so on and so forth.

I think the topic of the oceans is too tricky. If expanding Earth theory is true, then Earth was originally a water world. And how are we to analyze the possible migration of the full ocean to actual sea beds? Plus all the geological phenomena...

There was a time when The Everest was sea floor. Maybe the Everest raised above water because of India, or maybe the water went down because expansion (plus going up because crust tension). How are going to tell the difference??

reply to post by gringoboy

Surely you are not suggestung the moon is pulling the water tides and earth away from the sun,the moon does have less mass you know ,what are you implying because it seems like nonsense the moon can`t pull the earth from the sun,this is due to my earlier posts the expanding medium of the universe.

I'd say you are very confused about tides and tidal interactions. If you don't understand the concepts then you probably want to take a basic course in the subject. You could probably sit in on an intro oceanography course at a nearby college. In the meantime try this link:
Tidal acceleration