Growing earth theory explains a few things

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
Question - If the earth is in fact growing... where is the matter coming from to support this growth?

This is the very most important question about Growing Earth. However, in order to answer it, we must develop some common background understanding in particle physics and cosmology, which can be quite complex.

Actually, with regards the EE hypothesis, we have to ask what size the Earth started out at and/or why it only started expanding after 4,450,000,000 years and not before?

If the Earth was less than half it's size 250ma then what size was it 750ma?

Simple question, And a robust hyposthesis wil have a ready expanation .......

There is plenty of theoretical room for creation/accumulation of mass at the earths core via alternative physics theories - not to mention the triple geospheres theory of Sep hasslberger blog.hasslberger.com...

Hasslberger is a good source and fine thinker.

However personaly as someone who knows the reality of psychic phenomina, that the earth is a living being with an evolution and destiny of her own and that the universe is a multi dimensional and multi density phenomina.

Then the question as to why she has expanded only in the last 250 million yrs or so is not likely to be found in the realm of physics - neither in my opinion is the missing mass as it likey condenses directly from the lower astral realms in episodic fashion.

While it's true that many answers might not be found in conventional science today, I share the view that science will eventually overcome the hurdles it's placed before itself and arrive at mechanisms and answers in terms of physics and cosmology which support the consciousness or identity of the Earth, and every other celestial body, as being entities unto themselves, with their own course and destiny.

It's interesting when considering that at the core of science, it explores the behavior of energy without really considering what drives this behavior beyond the most simple physical phenomena. Consciousness is also an Energy, after all. The next doors to open in science will likely need to come to grips with the ideas you raise, Johnny.

reply to post by MichaelNetzer


Yes, I agree with everything you say there, that all fits into my picture of things very well.

I also do think that with the increased earthquakes and volcanoes, accompanied by the appearance of cracks and sinkholes, yes these are things that happen all the time, and yes we're getting better at detecting things, but we've been good enough at it for long enough that we can say that there's more stuff happening of greater severity with increasing regularity, and we may be about to see the expanding Earth theory demonstrated and proved under our very feet.

Not sure if anyone brought this up already, but just a couple points I want to make based upon accepted physics that directly contradict things the OP said.

You mentioned that if the moon and earth are growing larger, the pull due to gravity between them would be less, thus the moon moving further away. This is EXACTLY opposite of what would happen.

The formula for gravitational force is this

F = G m/ r^2

So F is the amount of force existing between two bodies, G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object in question (i.e the moon), and r is the distance between the center of mass of the object and the center of mass of the earth.

So let's assume that m is 1 right now, and r is 2

that gives us F = G/4
if m doubled to 2, that would give us F = 2G/4 or G/2



Secondly, accepted science gives us this - you can't get something for nothing. If you are increasing the mass of the earth somehow, it has to COME from somewhere. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So yes, different types of matter have different volumes, and in general a solid will have less volume than the same item would as a liquid or a gas (water being one of the few notable exceptions).. but in order to turn from a solid to a liquid, you need extreme heat or pressure, which needs a source of some kind. Now we know that the center of the earth is hot, but there is no mechanism that allows it to increase in energy, which is what you would need if the earth was expanding. You're missing either mass or energy no matter how you try and figure it out, in my opinion. To blow up a balloon, you can't just stretch the rubber, you HAVE to put something else in the middle.

reply to post by robwerden


I really like this rather original idea.

You can't apply science to stuff you dont' understand anyways, as it may not apply to the unknown.

But yea I've always wondered about crystals and the "power" they really posses.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Not sure if anyone brought this up already, but just a couple points I want to make based upon accepted physics that directly contradict things the OP said.

You mentioned that if the moon and earth are growing larger, the pull due to gravity between them would be less, thus the moon moving further away. This is EXACTLY opposite of what would happen.

The formula for gravitational force is this

F = G m/ r^2

So F is the amount of force existing between two bodies, G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object in question (i.e the moon), and r is the distance between the center of mass of the object and the center of mass of the earth.

So let's assume that m is 1 right now, and r is 2

that gives us F = G/4
if m doubled to 2, that would give us F = 2G/4 or G/2

Yes, the equation works in a situation where the distance between the two bodies increases at the same rate as the increase of mass, because there are no other factors affecting the distance between them.

But in a situation where these are not two independent objects, but one which is orbiting the other, and they are both affected by the gravitational pull of a third object, the sun, then that provides entirely different conditions for the equation than the basic one used to calculate gravitational force between two independent objects with no other parameters.

Intrinsically, when an object orbits another, then the orbiting object is trying to pull away, in a repelling trajectory, from the object it orbits . But because the attracting force of the larger object is greater, then a balance is struck between them and an orbit is achieved. The repelling force of the orbiting object is balanced by the attracting force of the one it orbits.

This remains true for all orbiting objects from electrons orbiting atom nuclei to the Earth orbiting the sun or the moon orbiting the Earth. Our solar system has an abundant variety of sizes for moons orbiting planets and they all maintain the balance of force between them to remain in orbit.

Considering the very slow growth process of celestial bodies measured by billions of years, then it might be safe to say that as moons and planets grow proportionately with the growth of the sun, then all these growth processes are affected in such a way so as to allow all the bodies to remain in balanced orbit.

The evidence for this is in observation, and not only fixed equations. We can see that the universe is full of countless moons, planets, stars and galaxies, all in countless sizes and proportions, and they all appear to maintain their orbits regardless of the sizes or growth rates. If we assume that they are all growing as evidence indicates, then we can safely say that part of the growth process is inherent in a more dynamic equation that reflects how all these orbits are maintained.

Secondly, accepted science gives us this - you can't get something for nothing. If you are increasing the mass of the earth somehow, it has to COME from somewhere. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So yes, different types of matter have different volumes, and in general a solid will have less volume than the same item would as a liquid or a gas (water being one of the few notable exceptions).. but in order to turn from a solid to a liquid, you need extreme heat or pressure, which needs a source of some kind. Now we know that the center of the earth is hot, but there is no mechanism that allows it to increase in energy, which is what you would need if the earth was expanding. You're missing either mass or energy no matter how you try and figure it out, in my opinion. To blow up a balloon, you can't just stretch the rubber, you HAVE to put something else in the middle.

This is also true. But when we say that energy is being converted to matter, we are not only talking about the energy that we can presently detect from the surface of the Earth. The conversion process depends on a presumed electromagnetic force converting plasma energy in the core of the Earth. We do not currently have the means to say conclusively that no such force exists in the Earth's core... or any celestial body... because we have not been there to observe or measure it. But we have visible evidence of the Earth's continental crust that indicates the planet is growing. It has increased in size, matter and mass.

And there is an additional presence of energy which we cannot detect even by observation.

For example, accepted science observes that the galaxies are moving apart at an increasingly accelerating rate. Scientists don't really know what force is the agent of this accelerated expansion. We can't see or detect it. But we can see it happening. So we theorize that it's a force we call Dark Energy.

There is also about 80% of the mass of the universe which is missing. We can't see this mass but we know it's there based on all the gravitational forces at play in the universe. So we theorize that something is there and we call it Dark Matter. That's the accepted science of observation and deduction.

When we observe an action, we can safely assume there is a force behind it even though we can't see that force or detect it or know exactly what it is.

GROWTH is the primary and primordial force and action in the universe. We can see this everywhere, in nature around us, in the solar system and in the galaxies. GROWTH is the prime phenomenon without which the universe wouldn't exist.

How else could all this marvelous universe have come to be as it is? Did it simply magically pop into existence through sorcery and witchcraft, just a big POOF and everything suddenly appeared as it is today?

Or has it come into being over a long process of eons and eons of growth from the smallest particles to the endless expanse that it is today?

I think logic and observation of ourselves and our most immediate environment all the way to the outer reaches of the universe all indicate the latter. It may be magical on an emotional level, but to assume that it all just got here in an instant as it is today through instant sorcery... well, that doesn't sound very scientific, or real, or logical. Most everything we observe grows. The universe also grows.

What's making it grow? Well, I've discussed one possible mechanism in particle physics that adheres to observation and experiment supported by the latest Super Collider findings. Personally, I think it's the best explanation I've heard, but I understand not everyone will agree. But it is based on accepted science. No magic.

No something ever came from nothing... I entirely agree.

We can safely say there's an infinite abundance of force and energy in the universe... and that it converts to matter in a gradual ongoing process that facilitates its growth.

And aside from all that, what a wonderful drawing in your avatar and how refreshing to know such a creative soul who is not only a writer and artist but also attracted to science and physics and knows how to write equations... which I'm entirely not adept at, and can't for the life of me understand how people do that. You're amazing.

Thanks for the compliments mate The avatar is a drawing I did aeons ago, and just happened to run across when I needed an avatar, and I'm one of those rare lucky people that is strong in both arts and sciences..

Secondly, yes the whole mass/gravity/orbit thing is more complex than that particular equation, but I didn't want to start breaking down the math here, where most people wouldn't get it, however, it remains true that as mass increases, the force between two bodies due to gravity increases.

Of course, there are always new theories, and new mechanisms, and weird things going on, and yeah, I'm aware of the existence of dark matter and quite a lot of the theories surrounding it, but while we know the universe itself is expanding, you have yet to show that the earth itself has changed in mass, or indeed any other celestial body. About all we know right now is that everything in the universe appears to be moving further away from us through time, and moving (apparently) faster the further away it gets. This is not necessarily the case, and could just be dependent on our position in the universe, rather than an actual measurement of increased velocity.

But still, to prove this theory, you need to be able to prove that the earth now has a mass greater than 5.9722 × 1024 kg or has somehow increased in volume, with a concurrent decrease in density.... once you've proved that, then you can start figuring out how and why, but I'm still at a loss as to any way I can figure it happening *other* than by external means, eg, meteors etc adding mass, or molecules/atoms joining our atmosphere due to gravitational or electromagnetic forces.

Originally posted by Inannamute
But still, to prove this theory, you need to be able to prove that the earth now has a mass greater than 5.9722 × 1024 kg or has somehow increased in volume, with a concurrent decrease in density.... once you've proved that, then you can start figuring out how and why, but I'm still at a loss as to any way I can figure it happening *other* than by external means, eg, meteors etc adding mass, or molecules/atoms joining our atmosphere due to gravitational or electromagnetic forces.

I'm not trying to prove it and even if I did, anyone can still reject it for any number of reasons. Based on what you said about expansion, I could show you a tree growing and you would say that it's possible that everything else is shrinking. What's the point of trying to prove anything?

It's more important that we start thinking clearly. Thinking scientifically and not politically. Science is an invigorating discipline but what we have today in Earth, Cosmology and Particle Physics theories is bad science. It's a social and political science driven by very unscientific thinking. Exerting all funding and research into only one model when it was too early to dismiss other viable ones is bad science. Now science says: "Prove it", when science itself spent all the education and research funding but never proved their own theories. Yet mainstream science employs mafia tactics by ridiculing and strong-arming independent thinkers who are asking the difficult questions and showing more practical evidence than they do. Mainstream science continues to dismiss evidence that shows the theories are not sound. Big Bang, Plate Tectonics and the Standard Model of Particle Physics have failed. Yet science sticks with them and ignores theories that have a lot more evidence. They don't even want to talk about it in any scientific terms. They just ignore, ridicule and deride everyone who doesn't fall in step with their consensus.

This is bad science.

I already said a lot in these previous posts.
First Post
Long Summary
Before 200 MYA

If you read these and still say:
"I'm still at a loss as to any way I can figure it happening *other* than by external means, eg, meteors etc adding mass, or molecules/atoms joining our atmosphere due to gravitational or electromagnetic forces."
Well, then there's not much more I can say.

If you read what I've posted about positrons and electrons and said: "OK, that's possible but it could also be something else".. then I'd understand and think that's a good situation. But if you say, "I can't see it", then I really don't know if you looked at it. Because it's all there. We just have to open our eyes. I can't help you do that unless you want to look.

So, please, just so I don't have to repeat everything, read these three links and think about what's in there. Then we can talk about why they do or don't make sense to you.

And I'll leave you with a final thought for now. All the matter in the universe got here somehow. There's a process. It's not magic. It's not POOF and it all appeared, the way science says about Big Bang. That's sorcery, not science. Evidence already shows that Big Bang failed. There's a process in which energy transforms into matter. We're showing a very viable process with Pair Production. New evidence from the LHC Super Collider supports this process. There's much much more scientific evidence for the universe growing than there is for the present models.

To just ignore it and say "I can't see it", well, that's not science. Good science dares to look and challenges itself.

It's time we begin to challenge ourselves.




Edit: Corrected first link.

Originally posted by MamaJ
I wish I could give this thread 100 flags because imo this is exciting and what Michael says rings so true to me.

I have always thought the Earth to be expanding...as with other Planets. I look at them as alive and evolving.

Science is always changing and I welcome change.

OP thinking and talking about ideas is how we all learn.

I am so glad you brought your thoughts into this Forum.

I'm glad you're enjoying. Thank you.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
reply to post by MichaelNetzer

 

Thank you. sir, for stating what I wanted to say, and probably better than I could have done it myself.

Oh, I'm sure you could handle it just fine, Capt. Thank you.

Originally posted by TheIrvy
reply to post by MichaelNetzer

 

Yes, I agree with everything you say there, that all fits into my picture of things very well.

I also do think that with the increased earthquakes and volcanoes, accompanied by the appearance of cracks and sinkholes, yes these are things that happen all the time, and yes we're getting better at detecting things, but we've been good enough at it for long enough that we can say that there's more stuff happening of greater severity with increasing regularity, and we may be about to see the expanding Earth theory demonstrated and proved under our very feet.

It does look that way. A big bump in the road coming up. And still, the Earth and everything on it will make it through to the other side. Thank you.

This is the most interesting thread I have read in a long time, thanks to all!

Michael Netzer, you are enlightening me, it is all so fascinating I want to learn more. Any suggestions on popular physics books that cover the positron/electron particle pair production stuff? I'd like to read more on that....

Thanks again to all of you...

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by CrashUnderride

 

There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.

Which is totally bogus.

The idea behind Tectonics Theory, is based on a "Forever machine", which is a paradox in and by itself. It is accepted, because the alternative is too unnerving to accept. People are looking for a stable planet, that will support life, for a long long time. That is what Tectonics Theory is about. It suggest a totel conservation of energy, involved with preassure inside the earth escaping the mantle ... and reentering. Which, as said before ... is a total fallacy.

In other words, the mechanics for Tectonics don't exist ...

The fact, that you have volcanic eruption, is proof of that inside the earth there is a preassure. The magma, is looking to escape. Water inside it is boiling, and seeking an escape in terms of gas. According to tectonics, this outward preassure is somehow magically moving plates aside ... and on top of that, by a magic wand, the preassure escape is somehow re entering the inside of the mantle through subduction.

That is another term for a "Forever machine" ... people just don't have the inclination to ask questions.

Now, on top of this, the magma inside the planet is somehow moving eastward, westward, north and south, and still creating only one magnetic field. Now, that's pretty close to magic.

The core inside, is where it all starts. It's not an iron nickel thing ... doesn't make any sense. That is just another convenient theory, and is much more convenient than to face the fact that the core is more likely a very unstable nuclear oven, or possibly a small sun. Or even a plasma core, a magnetic liquid that is creating heat and by heat there is preassure generated as things get hotter. And as preassure increases, there is need for an escape. The preassure is what we know there exists, because else there wouldn't be vulcanic eruption.

Beyond this, there are a lot of pieces in the puzzle that Tectonic Theory doesn't answer and ignores. While EE provides a very natural explanation to many mysteries in the world. When mysteries, suddenly become natural phenomena, that generally suggest that you are on the right track. The mechanism for EE is simpler, and more logical than for Tectonics Theory. Nobody asks scientists to provide proof of mechanics, for TT. It is accepted, because of "convenience", not because of it's truthfullness, or accuracy.

A vital piece in the puzzle, are Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Easter Island statues, etc. These are facts, not fiction, and they don't only suggest ... but insist, that gravity hasn't been constant. Not only does it insist this, it also insist, that this has occured within our own memory and history. Not merely in prehistoric times.

You can go and mumble about Elefants being so strong as steel, but people don't grow large today. But existed up to 3m before. They aren't nephilim or giants, or dynosaurs. But today, a human being growing over 6 feet tall, will have considerable health problems throughout his life. Dynosaurs could not exist in our modern world. I am merely 6feet tall and like so many others must battle back aches, as a consequence. Not only that, but people that grow up in places, like the andes, where g is less are generally taller. While they are shorter at the equador. Finally, as a gyraf has problem with the length of his neck ... what then of the dynosaurs.

The crust and mantle, are like the skin of a balloon. If you put a hole in it, it will escape ... but when the earth is conserned, it will only escape as far as it can out into the atmosphere, as gas. Until gravity pulls it in ... in other words, it escapes the enclosement of the mantle until it reaches a balance with gravity ...

That is what EE says ... the planet is growing, because the preassure inside demands it ...

And don't go about talking about movements of plates, that create preassure that makes vulcanic eruptions ... such movements don't exist magically on their own. Such mechanism don't exist on their own, and magically occurr ... it starts in the core.

reply to post by AnnieNakki


I'm not aware of a popular book on Pair Production, Annie. Most everything on it is hardcore science and the subject is usually included as a chapter in comprehensive particle physics textbooks. But here are a few links that simplify the phenomenon. The last one is a technical paper if you have the inclination.

Pair Production - Wikipedia
Pair Production - 1
Pair Production - 2
Pair Production - 3
Pair Production - 4
Pair Production - 5

When researching the subject, it's best to distinguish between fact and theory.

At this stage of textbook science, most theory is suspect of being indoctrinated into the limited working models that science adopts.

By questioning these theories and exploring alternatives, we can arrive at surprising possibilities that the same facts suggest.

After you read these links, you'll find that the basic facts of Pair Production are:

1. When a photon (pure energy) strikes "something" then it is converted into matter (positron-electron pair).
2. When the particle pairs appear, they immediately come together, combine and disappear.
3. When they disappear, they emit two photons with opposite charges which fly in opposite directions, and are together equal to the energy of the first photon that caused the creation of the particle pair.
4. This process is the only natural phenomenon that we've observed where energy converts into matter without human or scientific intervention. Scientists have created other artificial particle pairs such as anti-quarks, anti-protons and anti-hydrogen atoms.... but all these are artificial creations which have never been observed in nature.

These are the facts. All the rest is theory.

The big question is why should a photon made of energy be converted to matter by striking an atom nucleus?

The theory that the first photon strikes an atom nucleus is not conclusive because everywhere a photon strikes on Earth there will be an atom nucleus. It's an easy and comfortable answer but there is another possibility.

The theory that the electron positron pair annihilate is also a theory that has another possibility.

We are suggesting that the photon strikes an unseen or undetectable electron-positron particle pair. The reason this pair is invisible is because the positive and negative charges cancel each other out.

This phenomenon is already known to occur with H2 atoms that are abundant in outer space but have been invisible until recently because their opposite charges cancel out. Here's a link to a paper on the subject

Here are the quotes from that paper:

Electromagnetic radiation is emitted at the wavelength of 21 cm, or an absorption line is observed (in the background radiation) at that wavelength. However, when two atoms of atomic hydrogen combine, forming molecular hydrogen (H2), their spins are coupled and completely cancel each other. The radio-frequency spectral line at 21 cm no longer exists, and the molecular hydrogen becomes totally invisible at that wavelength.
The possible vibrational and rotational states for the two hydrogen nuclei in the diatomic hydrogen molecule are well known (cf. Herzberg 1950). However, the only two electrons are so tightly coupled, that they form a pair in which the electric field and the spin of the electrons are completely cancelled.

We are suggesting that the universe is ultra-densely filled with invisible electron-positron pairs. That they are everywhere in the universe and that this is what causes the anomalies in cosmology and physics that have necessitated the theories of Aether, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and others.

These pairs are the building blocks of matter. From them, all the matter in the universe is made.

When a photon strikes one of these, presumably at the right angle, the pair breaks apart and the photon is absorbed into the two particles. Half into the positron and the other half into the electron.

The particles then break apart and become visible for a nano second. But they attract each other immediately and combine again to disappear and become undetectable.

When they combine and become invisible, the two photon halves are emitted from them.

We are suggesting that matter and energy do not annihilate... they only become invisible.

In the core of the Earth, the electromagnetic force is so strong that it prevents the particle pair from combining when they break apart.

Being separated, a long process begins where the positron attracts 918 other particle pairs that it's able to hold on to. The electron can now approach it but cannot combine with it. Instead it falls into the orbit of the 1837 particles (918x2+1 positron core= the atomic weight of a proton). When this happens, a new Hydrogen atom (1 proton and 1 electron) is born into the core of the Earth.

We are suggesting that this process is the one by which all the matter in the universe is made. No Big Bang Voodo. No Convection/Tectonic Plate sorcery. And no Higgs boson and quark witchcraft.

A simple and elegant scientifically sound process supported by all the evidence available to us.

It does not exist in any textbooks or other books... Not yet.

It lives on the web, on forums, on blogs and on websites of an exponentially growing number of Growing Earth enthusiasts.

It will put to end the sorcery, voodo and witchcraft that mainstream science theories have imposed on us.


Enjoy your explorations and thank you for the kind words.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Not sure if anyone brought this up already, but just a couple points I want to make based upon accepted physics that directly contradict things the OP said.

You mentioned that if the moon and earth are growing larger, the pull due to gravity between them would be less, thus the moon moving further away. This is EXACTLY opposite of what would happen.

The formula for gravitational force is this

F = G m/ r^2

So F is the amount of force existing between two bodies, G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object in question (i.e the moon), and r is the distance between the center of mass of the object and the center of mass of the earth.

So let's assume that m is 1 right now, and r is 2

that gives us F = G/4
if m doubled to 2, that would give us F = 2G/4 or G/2



Secondly, accepted science gives us this - you can't get something for nothing. If you are increasing the mass of the earth somehow, it has to COME from somewhere. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So yes, different types of matter have different volumes, and in general a solid will have less volume than the same item would as a liquid or a gas (water being one of the few notable exceptions).. but in order to turn from a solid to a liquid, you need extreme heat or pressure, which needs a source of some kind. Now we know that the center of the earth is hot, but there is no mechanism that allows it to increase in energy, which is what you would need if the earth was expanding. You're missing either mass or energy no matter how you try and figure it out, in my opinion. To blow up a balloon, you can't just stretch the rubber, you HAVE to put something else in the middle.

First of all, we do not know per this minute if G is correct. G may just as well be a point on a Parabola, and not an actual constant. Merely a constant in time ... it most likely is ... consider it.

Secondly ... how do you suggest the world came to be? I understand there are those who do not agree with Big Bang, and yes ... Big Bang is another "convenience" theory, that is supposed to bridge the gap between science and religion. But non the less, the Universe is just as big as it was in the beginning. It neither gets bigger, or smaller ... that would be an oxymoron. Because where would it grow to, or shrink from?

If it was plasma in the beginning, something caused it to collect into gravitational bubbles. Just like water dripplets do, on a piece of glass. Now, what happens when this gets larger and larger? What happens to stuff under preassure? Under extreme preassure, the atom will collapse ... two atoms collapse ... there is no alternative. Pretty basic nuclear physics, really. You create a nuclear explosion, by imploding the materieal and forcing the atoms ... to collapse in on themselves.

That is pretty much, what happens in the core.

Secondly, what happens to all the stuff that is being thrown into space by the sun? merely photons? is that what warms your skin, when you sun bathe? Energy and matter is the same thing, that is what E=mc^2 tells you. They are bound to the same thing, and if the energy is increasing and light speed is constant, then so must the mass. And the sun is bombarding the planet with energy ... and it is also bombarding the planet with heat. About 640 Joul per second, per square meter. Doesn't that come to about 184 grams, per square meter per day? Is this trivial mass?

When we calculate this, we are ignoring dust that is drawn to earth by its gravity. We are also ignoring the plantlife on earth, that is actively collecting energy from the sun. Our purpose on this planet, along with the plantlife, is to collect the energy and turn it into dust ... we are the planets digestive system. Literally speaking.

Even if we were extremely conservative, and said only 1 gram collected per square meter, and being conservative that there are some 60 000 000 000 square meters. Now that is a whole lot of grams, being picked up by mother earth every day ...and most certainly not trivial mass.

reply to post by bjarneorn


The acumulation of cosmic dust can be pretty much ruled out as a non-starter - if the mid-atlantic ridge is spreading at several cm per yr - that would require the earth to acumulate enough dust to cover the entire earth to a depth of almost a cm every single yr - there wouldbe layers and layers of this stuff - besides what is clearly happening is an increase in mass deep below the earth's surface.

From the ages of the ocean floor: the earth has increased from a third it original size in 250 million yrs at an ever increasing rate!

I believe the answers to this can only be found in a 'complete cosmos' explanation - one that takes into account the multi-dimensional, multi-density living, sentient nature of planets suns etc and their evolution.

Gurdgieff I believe was the first to make public the idea that plants, humans animals etc were here to provide 'food' to the planet.

Gurdjieff’s many visionary ideas seem quite strange at first. He believed the earth and the moon were living, evolving beings – also a shamanic concept – and that humanity was designed to serve the evolutionary purposes of the earth and the moon. Human beings are, in his theory, the "organs of sense perception" for the earth, and in their continual transformations of this planet they serve the planet’s needs – not their own.

"Humanity, like the rest of organic life, exists on earth for the needs and purposes of the earth. And it is exactly as it should be for the earth’s requirements at the present time." In his system, there are many finer gradients of matter that science does not register – not only ideas and thoughts, but even a substate of the human soul are types of material. After we die, according to Gurdjieff, the moon consumes the fine matter of human souls. It is like a magnet that draws our souls into it: "Everything living on the earth, people, animals, plants, is food for the moon. The moon is a huge living being feeding upon all that lives and grows on the earth." Someday, the earth would evolve into a being like the sun, while the moon would transform into a second earth. Humanity was simply a stage in this process.

www.breakingopenthehead.com...

Gurdgieff - certainly did not have the whole picture - but I think that the organic lifeof the planet has a major part to play in capturing and processing various astral energies that the planet then manages to condense into physical matter.

The Gnostics also had a very unique and elaborate cosmology, where the Aeon Sophia or Gaia 'becomes' the planet Earth and requires animal and human life to enter into a necessary 'correction' to her evolution.

www.metahistory.org...

.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Secondly ... how do you suggest the world came to be? I understand there are those who do not agree with Big Bang, and yes ... Big Bang is another "convenience" theory, that is supposed to bridge the gap between science and religion. But non the less, the Universe is just as big as it was in the beginning. It neither gets bigger, or smaller ... that would be an oxymoron. Because where would it grow to, or shrink from?

I think this is all true when speaking about the entire universe. We talk about growth of celestial bodies within it, galaxies, suns planets and moons... but reaching back further as to how the universe came to be the repository of matter that allows for this growth of its constituents... well, that's the type of thing that gives a lot of people headaches.

I suppose many of us have thoughts on it. It's easy for some to just believe that God did it and let go of the need to wonder about it. Or to believe it just did it on its own, which roughly means the universe is its own God. I've never met a true atheist, actually. Everyone believes something did it. Even the world's most prominent self proclaimed atheist, Stephen Hawking, isn't really an atheist because he says "The universe didn't need God to create it, all it needed was the laws of physics and a little gravity." Which really means that the laws of physics and a little gravity are Mr. Hawking's God.

But to wonder about how the universe came into being, regardless of our diverging beliefs, well that seems like a core curiosity of the first degree. I've tried to put this into words before but it always seems to come short. It's not the kind of thing that everyone in the Growing Earth community agrees with. But for me, it provides an underlying structure for some of the ideas proposed here.

So, let's try it again one more time and see if it'll come out a little better on this try.

Before there was the universe... Oh right. I forgot. We can't really say that, can we? How can there be a "before" time? Or outside of "space"? There can't be such things, can there? The universe must be infinite space because how can anything be outside of it? And it must be infinite time because even though we live through a time stream, all of time must be infinite. It can't have a beginning or an end, can it? Not really because there can be nothing before or after time.

So the infinite universe, which is the repository of matter and all its processes, including everything that has ever happened in it and will ever happen, also including everything in it like consciousness and awareness and intelligence, well all of these together are infinite forever. And everything said here exists in that realm of the infinite entirety of time and space.

In that infinite realm, it is a pure ultra-dense conscious intelligent singularity of everything forever. So in order for it to make the universe as the repository for matter and all its processes, it divides itself into infinite pieces of time and space. And it does this at once all the time in order to provide the conditions to create the universe.

I'd suggest it does all this in a singular instant Big Bang explosion type of event where all space and time is divided into the presumably empty space of the universe... and it's at this point that time and space divide and come into being. That's why there can be nothing before and after time, because it's all engulfed in all of time. And the same goes for space. Every single smallest piece of space is engulfed in all of the infinite space of the universe.

But this space and time is not really empty and it's not a vacuum. It's full of the infinite number of little pieces of its fullness that it divided itself into. But we can't see any of it because it's invisible to us because it divided itself into pairs of pieces that cancel each other out.

That's how the universe became full of electron-positron pairs from which all matter is made. Those particles are really just energy, and energy is just like a spirit that does things... like a strong spirit or good spirit. It's all the same really.

So that one big infinite spirit divided itself into infinite little pieces and made the infinite universe as the repository for all the matter and processes and stories that it'll create in the universe.

And just to get the ball rolling, in that first instant Big Bang event that made all the particle pairs that will become the building blocks of matter, the infinite energy that divided itself in a big instant explosion also took advantage of the explosion to break up enough of the pairs to begin making the first galaxy cores and stars from which everything else will be made in a long timeless saga of the history of the universe.

I'd bet if Moses was here reading this right now, he'd say something like: "Right! That's exactly what I meant! The big infinite energy/spirit of everything is the THE HEAVENS... and the seemingly empty universe full of the particle pairs is THE EARTH because that's what the physical matter including the Earth will be made of... and the first few stars that set the creation into motion is the LET THERE BE LIGHT part.

And now that we have the kettle and ingredients, we can start baking the cake and filling the universe with galaxies and stars and planets... and there'll be that one blue and white mud ball that'll be a good place to make the ATS forums and all its members... just so we can tell the story of how we did it all.

From that point the process continues as discussed earlier. Galaxy cores and stars are transforming the particle pairs into new stars, planets and moons. The manufacturing of matter increases and causes the process to speed up because there's more matter making new matter. It all grows with accelerating speed, moving further apart and appearing to expand when it's really growing instead. Billions and billions and billions of years go by and the universe becomes full of galaxies as far as the eye can see. But it can never be really full because the space of the universe is endless and time will never end for it to ever fill up anyway.

And we just happen to have found ourselves here and now in the middle of it, without any memory of how it happened but with that inside sense that we'll be able to tell the story one day.

And for the most part, just having a really wonderful time enjoying it.

Except for the headache that comes with trying to figure it out and tell the story.

Personally, I agree with Gurdgieff. This earth will eventually become a Sun, which is why I believe tha core is a miniature sun, and not an iron nickel thing.. However, on the relation between life, and the moon. I would say that was pretty strange, I'd like to read more about "why" he thinks that.

When concerning the Universe, personally I visualize it this way. The universe is originally just Plasma, where I agree with Big Bang theory. However, I see it as gravitation bubbles that happen within it, that collect much like water dropplets on glass. Every galaxy, is a mere bubble of gravity, with small lesser bubbles within. Distance is merely a perception of energy level required to escape a gravitation field. Time, is merely the amount of energy need to acquire that level. Therefore neither time, nor space actually exist, leaving a notion of multiple dimensions.

But my Universe, has no place in it with a God. Unless you call the laws of physics, God.

Originally posted by bjarneorn


But my Universe, has no place in it with a God. Unless you call the laws of physics, God.

How ironic when your post shows such a total lock of comprehension for even the simplest scientific facts. The earth will become a sun? Yea, right. Astonishing lack of knowledge. All the miriad experiments which have been done to explain our planet! Try reading some of them.

www.psc.edu...

That is a good start, although it is slightly alternative as a theory.

www.universetoday.com...

This is a more traditional view.

A Planet is a planet, a sun is a sun, and a moon is a moon.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by bjarneorn


But my Universe, has no place in it with a God. Unless you call the laws of physics, God.

How ironic when your post shows such a total lock of comprehension for even the simplest scientific facts. The earth will become a sun? Yea, right. Astonishing lack of knowledge. All the miriad experiments which have been done to explain our planet! Try reading some of them.

www.psc.edu...

That is a good start, although it is slightly alternative as a theory.

www.universetoday.com...

This is a more traditional view.

A Planet is a planet, a sun is a sun, and a moon is a moon.

You know, when people come around and say "they know everything", it usually means they know nothing.

I said "I believe" ... that I agree with that idea. You think it's based on ignorance, good for you ...

Now, on other notes. I came across another "crazy?" idea. That the earths center is a "black hole". Here is the idea that the earth is "shrinking", perhaps. That the "black hole" within is going to kill all life on earth, here is a link.

www.earth-issues.com...

Now, this is how much we "know" about the earths core. Absolutely nothing, there are those who think it is a mini-sun. There are those who think it's a "black hole". And then there are those, who think its a little iron-nickel thingie. And then, there are those who think its a collection of heavy betals "uranium", that has actually been turned into a nuclear oven.

All of these people are prominent physicists, and they don't have a clue as what the inners of the earth is all about. They are guessing themselves, left and right.

However, there are those, like myself, who believe it all is similar to life itself. That there is a basic growth, from one to the other, just like a human being starts looking like a faish, and progresses. We see things, not as complicated structures, but as a simple progress that starts somewhere. Whatever started in beginning, must have started in simplicity and then progressed. What happened in one place, must have happened everywhere. The universe is not a "masterpiece" done by God, where everything fits in a singular piece of work of his making. But where things started on a small scale, and progressed ... and that all we are, is a state in a long process, a state which most other objects shared in some manner or another. This state, is merely a point on a timeline ... a single dot.

So please don't come again, and tell us all how smart you are and how stupid I am, because you alone know what is at the beginning and at the end of this timeline. Because in reality, it's like spitting out "the answer to life and everything ... is 42". It's just annoying ... I am neither the first to have this idea, "as pointed out by others", nor am I the only one having either.

Expanding earth, has a lot of evidence for it ... and it's quite interresting, and fun to deal with it.