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

reply to post by poet1b


You have provided nothing but false statements and misrepresentations.

There is nothing but a small amount of dust on the moon. I have supplied links to that effect earlier.

Earlier in the thread I showed your claims to be DOA.

reply to post by stereologist


You don't need an axis, fixed or not, to throw off the balance of anything spinning. Imbalance will result in a wobble. It is all about the center of mass, as numerous links provided earlier have shown.

Ever shoot a basketball that with age has gotten off balance?

Hey, believe what you want to believe, I don't care.

Speculating on new evidence is what people should do, how do you not get this?

reply to post by poet1b

You don't need an axis, fixed or not, to throw off the balance of anything spinning. Imbalance will result in a wobble. It is all about the center of mass, as numerous links provided earlier have shown.

Which is exactly why you are wrong about Pangaea causing problems for the Earth.

As was pointed out before your spinning tire is a bad model. The Earth does not have a fixed rotational axis and the center of mass is the point through which the rotational axis of the Earth revolves. Should there be a mass redistribution, then this point can move and the axis moves. There is no problem for the Earth rotating as you suggested. In addition, this effect is muted by isostacy.

Ever shoot a basketball that with age has gotten off balance?

Another pointless issue. The basketball has no problem rotating. It rotates abouts its centerof mass just as the Earth would.

Speculating on new evidence is what people should do, how do you not get this?

What do you not understand about speculating about obviously and demonstrably incorrect ideas?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

The expando earth so-called theory has zero explanatory capability.

Your claims about subduction are so far off the mark it is not funny. Subduction is a well studied process. The interactions of the plates at subduction zones is well studied. Seismic evidence makes it possible to map the plate boundaries and to determine the motions of the plates.

Plates are note expanding, at least not in the sense used by the flawed idea called expanding earth. Thermal changes in plates actually causes shrinkage in the sense of volume change used in expando earth. The method of plate destruction is well studied and has been for decades.

I know that is what the lock step groupthink amongst most geological institutes is - but it is just that groupthink! because the real truths are beyond the boundaries of what the elites have limited human knowledge to. To really give a true picture you would have to incorporate the unseen worlds, alien intervention, previous civilisations etc etc - stuff that the elites do not want to become common knowledge.


www.ncgt.org... - there are plenty of geologists here that think Plate tectonics is bunk.
(new concepts in global techtonics - international newsletter)

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

I know that is what the lock step groupthink amongst most geological institutes is - but it is just that groupthink! because the real truths are beyond the boundaries of what the elites have limited human knowledge to. To really give a true picture you would have to incorporate the unseen worlds, alien intervention, previous civilisations etc etc - stuff that the elites do not want to become common knowledge.

This is merely a reflection of you showing that you do not understand science or how science works. Had you ever been exposed to a scientific conference then you'd know how incredibly off the mark this is. The appeal to all of the odd notions simply confirms your lack of experience in these matters.

there are plenty of geologists here that think Plate tectonics is bunk.

That's so far off from the truth it is laughable. Here is a group of people with other ideas. It is a remarkable small group. It is a group with few researchers. The newsletter format is important for groups with limited publications. And most of all many of these people advocate adjustments to the theory and not replacements.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Missed this earlier.

Do you understand how a lever works, or a pulley? The further out from the center, the more influence the change in weight has.

As far as rotational speed goes, the size of the mass is a huge factor, as well as the duration of time that the body is spinning with a off balance weight distribution is an even bigger factor. At the equator, the Earth's surface is moving over a thousand miles per hour. I don't think you comprehend what you are talking about. The planet was spinning with this massive continental imbalance for 40 million years.

An Earthquake and tsunami were able change the rotation of the Earth's axis. Yet you don't think the concentration of the Earths continental mass on one side of the planet would have any effect?

reply to post by topherman420


If you don't want people making statements about their beliefs in science, then you shouldn't make statements about others beliefs. You were replying to a post I made originally.

There are more than a few links on this thread where large numbers of geologist support the idea of the expanding Earth theory. For you to pretend this isn't the case, and off handedly dismiss the whole concept without even explaining how your came to such a conclusion, pretty much leads to my statement.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by topherman420

 

If you don't want people making statements about their beliefs in science, then you shouldn't make statements about others beliefs. You were replying to a post I made originally.

There are more than a few links on this thread where large numbers of geologist support the idea of the expanding Earth theory. For you to pretend this isn't the case, and off handedly dismiss the whole concept without even explaining how your came to such a conclusion, pretty much leads to my statement.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Well obviously Im missing something here but no one was able to explain it in simpler terms for me. Science usually does a decent job in doing this for me but since there is an obvious flaw in my critical thinking perhaps someone with more knowledge on this man with the theory would enlighten me. I had troubles finding his explanation on how matter would be created to make an expanding earth. Or am I wrong, does the matter not get made but stretch? Is that possible? Would physicists be able to show expanding matter and help his theory? All these questions are going unanswered for me and Im obviously too into mainstream scientific method to figure it out.
And I

reply to post by poet1b

As far as rotational speed goes, the size of the mass is a huge factor, as well as the duration of time that the body is spinning with a off balance weight distribution is an even bigger factor. At the equator, the Earth's surface is moving over a thousand miles per hour. I don't think you comprehend what you are talking about. The planet was spinning with this massive continental imbalance for 40 million years.

This is just a huge and glaring failure on your part. The Earth would not spin in a state of imbalance as you claim. The Earth would spin in balance since its axis is not fixed.

I'm not clear as to why you do not understand this simple issue. An imbalance only occurs when the axis is fixed.

An Earthquake and tsunami were able change the rotation of the Earth's axis. Yet you don't think the concentration of the Earths continental mass on one side of the planet would have any effect?

On the one hand you understand that that the axis can move yet you make a foolish claim in the previous sentence that the Earth would be out of balance or imbalanced as you put it.

reply to post by poet1b

There are more than a few links on this thread where large numbers of geologist support the idea of the expanding Earth theory.

Actually it's a trivial number of people with only a few that claim to be geologists.

or you to pretend this isn't the case, and off handedly dismiss the whole concept without even explaining how your came to such a conclusion, pretty much leads to my statement.

For you to claim that it is anything other than a few people is disingenuous.

reply to post by topherman420


The creation f new matter is a dead end. Earlier on I calculated the amount of energy it takes to create new matter. It's a lot of energy. Consider this:

Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams of matter in the bomb was converted into the active energy of heat and radiation (see mass-energy equivalence for detail).

Little Boy
Not even a gram of matter destroyed Hiroshima. Obviously billions of Hiroshima energies must be converted to matter to expand the Earth as suggested by the expando earth theory.

The believers in this rather ludicrous idea (not a theory in the scientific use of the word) claim other possibilities such as accretion from space. The astronauts on the Moon encountered a few centimeters of dust, not the hundreds of kilometers of dust envisioned by expando earth people.

The lame guess called expando earth is not a theory. It's malarkey.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by topherman420

 

The creation f new matter is a dead end. Earlier on I calculated the amount of energy it takes to create new matter. It's a lot of energy. Consider this:

Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams of matter in the bomb was converted into the active energy of heat and radiation (see mass-energy equivalence for detail).

Little Boy
Not even a gram of matter destroyed Hiroshima. Obviously billions of Hiroshima energies must be converted to matter to expand the Earth as suggested by the expando earth theory.

The believers in this rather ludicrous idea (not a theory in the scientific use of the word) claim other possibilities such as accretion from space. The astronauts on the Moon encountered a few centimeters of dust, not the hundreds of kilometers of dust envisioned by expando earth people.

The lame guess called expando earth is not a theory. It's malarkey.

And thats why I find the previous articles in neal adams science hard to believe because of those dead ends, and the question on where the hell all this extra matter would appear from being one of my biggest quiestions. You have provided more information on this then the above poster who could do nothing to explain it and I appreciate it. So Im glad im not alone when I observe this to be a flawed theory (aka malarkey lol ).

i mean sure. but just type in youtube. "live video nibiru"

can only see it in the southern most parts of Earth. you should know this. its very much so there. i have seen it. good day and good luck to you all.

reply to post by HispanicPanic

can only see it in the southern most parts of Earth. you should know this. its very much so there. i have seen it. good day and good luck to you all.

You say you have seen it. How did you see it? What does it look like? Can you tell us where you saw it?

reply to post by topherman420


What really puts this in perspective is to think that a Us or Canadian 5 cent coin weighs around 5 grams. Imagine the destruction that this small coin could cause if it were to suddenly be converted into energy. The well known formula of E=mc^2 is truly awesome when we think of a coin that could be 5 Hiroshima explosions.

Reverse that thought. What if Hiroshima could be stopped and the energy captured and made into matter to save the city. You could flip the captured matter in your palm. Do it on a calm day to prevent the wind from blowing away a coin 1/5 the weight of a nickel.

reply to post by topherman420

"Im obviously too into mainstream scientific method to figure it out. "

I would say obviously not too into mainstream science.

Mainstream science already know that matter expands for many reasons.

reply to post by stereologist


As usual, your claims wonder into the realm of hysterical.

Does a baseball have an axis? No, but pitchers are able to do many things by getting it off balance, which is why the league has rules against those techniques.

I can hear your argument now, but the Earth isn't thrown like a baseball, blah blah blah, like all other balls without axises, it proves that wobble can be cause by off balance.

By the way, do you have any idea how heavy an atomic bomb is? If all it took was the weight of a nickel, atomic bombs would not be nearly as heavy as they are. Clearly you have no concept how the fission process works.

reply to post by Odeian


1. You mention accretion - look at the Moon's surface. There has been little accretion over billions of years. I t measures in centimeters of accumulated material.
2. Creation of matter. The claimed rates require the energy of millions of Hiroshima bombs passing through every square kilometer a day. It's not happening.

Following this through, the central core of the planet is neither solid nor molten iron - it is a super heated, highly energised state of matter i.e. plasma. p

For a while you were moving along smoothly and then this giant claim unrelated to the other issues you stated. What is known from seismic data is that the center of the Earth is solid, not liquid like the outer core.

Perhaps when the mass of a planet is large enough, it begins this process of changing and joining elements until it produces fissionable material and it ‘ignites’.

If something on that scale were happening then we'd detect the vibrations through seismographic stations and we'd detect the nuclear reactions with the many sensitive detectors that have been built.

Such energy levels would be created at the central core of a large enough body of mass because of the intense pressure it would be under.

The pressure inside of the Earth is insufficient to promote nuclear reactions such as those found in a brown dwarf which is at least 13 times the mass of Jupiter,

It would then not only be able to add electrons/protons to existing atoms or join atoms together to create compounds and molecules but actually create new matter from condensed energy. The first atoms would of course be the simplest, hydrogen and helium for example, which just so happens to be the most abundant elements in the universe. [/quote
This is another leap not suggested by the material before it. First you suggest that pressures allow fusion and not you want to create protons and electrons from energy. Not happening! Besides if it were possible the process of converting energy to matter would soon cool down the core and the process would cease without much mass having been created.

Accretion is irrefutable.

True, but it is remarkably small, centimeters in billions of years.

Matter creation is theoretical, but it is a logical deduction and therefore quite probable.

It's your guess or theory. It does not follow from scientific theories,

They knew about seafloor spreading, but dismissing accretion of cosmic dust as insignificant (with evidence to the contrary; silt levels in oceans, stratification (layers) of different types of rock – these come from above, not pushed up from below) and believing the core of the planet was molten iron (without any evidence) they preferred the idea of a fixed size Earth.

How wrong you are! Again!
1. Silt from above has a terrestrial origin, not an extra-terrestrial origin. The material of the sea floor are well known, well studied, and are from terrestrial sources.
2. The iron core evidence includes seismology, studies of element abundance in the universe, direct studies of mantle rocks, geomagnetism, known mass of the Earth, ...

In order to make this idea work they invented the idea of subduction zones whereby the seafloor spreading was cancelled out by the other side of the ‘tectonic plate’ sinking underneath another one. This defies both logic and physics. A lighter, less dense material cannot push down through a heavier, denser material whilst also going against the pressure pushing everything up (if there was no pressure pushing up we wouldn’t have volcanoes).

That's just silly talk. Subduction zones are well mapped by seismological evidence, volcanic evidence, and orogenic studies that show the plates moving down and into the mantle.

However, some very god animations have been created which helps us along with this. Do youtube search for Expanding Earth.

Skip the science and head for the videos done by hoaxers. Good plan.

but nevertheless the continents match up.

So the idea is to attach to mismatched geological structures using graphics that do not consider what happens when objects are heavily restructured through flattening.

If gravity was less then creatures would not be as limited in size as they are now which explains (and is the only explanation) why dinosaurs grew to such massive sizes.

Perpetuating a falsehood is just another clear sign that this expanding earth claim is just nonsense. The claims of a requirement for a lower gravity have also been made about redwood trees. Obviously, the initial ideas on how plant vasculature works in these tall trees is incorrect and since been resolved.

The future of Earth (and all heavenly bodies)

All of what follows appears to be flawed claims based on the flaws already pointed out.

reply to post by poet1b

Does a baseball have an axis? No, but pitchers are able to do many things by getting it off balance, which is why the league has rules against those techniques.

A rather poor attempt this time at misrepresentation. The issue with the ball is drag, not the axis about which it rotates. Please avoid posting information which you know is untrue, misleading, and irrelevant to the discussion.

I can hear your argument now, but the Earth isn't thrown like a baseball, blah blah blah, like all other balls without axises, it proves that wobble can be cause by off balance.

Maybe you do not understand what you are talking about. I doubt it. I believe you are knowingly making false and misleading statements.

By the way, do you have any idea how heavy an atomic bomb is? If all it took was the weight of a nickel, atomic bombs would not be nearly as heavy as they are. Clearly you have no concept how the fission process works.

Apparently you do not understand the process either. The weight of the bomb is not the issue, but the energy conversion is. You also miss the point of efficiency. Since the bomb converted such a minuscule amount of matter to energy and there was a fair amount of fissionable material in the bomb it shows that the bomb was extremely inefficient. Since that time bombs have become much more efficient and can transform much more of the matter into energy.