Growing earth theory explains a few things

reply to post by bjarneorn

Earths gravity would dictate, earth should be misshapen. Just like so many large rocks floating in space, earth should be equivalent.

If you were a giant and gentyly poked the earth - your finger tip apart from penetrating the entire atmosphere in a fraction of a second, becoming incandescent and creating a shock wave that would destroy all life, would just poke straight in, as though the earth were a blob of flimsy jelly!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
If you were a giant and gentyly poked the earth - your finger tip apart from penetrating the entire atmosphere in a fraction of a second, becoming incandescent and creating a shock wave that would destroy all life, would just poke straight in, as though the earth were a blob of flimsy jelly!

Ok, I admit to my ignorance ... enlighten me ... I don't get it.

reply to post by bjarneorn

Earths gravity would dictate, earth should be misshapen.

Its more like a balloon filled with red hot jelly!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Earths gravity would dictate, earth should be misshapen.

Its more like a balloon filled with red hot jelly!

A question for you.

If you put ice cubes in water, what will the water temperature be at the point where you have both ice cubes and water present?

What I want to get at, is that if the earth was a balloon filled with red hot jelly, the jelly would NOT explode, but melt the outer border. I insist that it would, because heat will dissipate, just as it does in a an electronic environment, where you put more surface area, to dissipate the heat. It would seak out equilibrium.

This is why I do not agree with the red hot jelly idea, nor of an iron core. It does not make any sense. In those times, where people thought the earth wa originally a ball of fire, shot out from the sun, that then little by little is cooling down. Yes, that could make some sense. But this isn't the current consensus ... so no, it doesn't make any sense at all. It's nonsense. Every magma coming out, would be "dissipation" of heat, meaning the core would be getting colder with every eruption. Even if it was only 1% of a degree, we would then still be living on a cold rock today, regardless.

We aren't, so there has to be heat production in the core. I see that as the only logical conclusion. The idea, that we have a plasma core, covered with an empty space surrounding it and the outer mantle. The mantle being heated by the core, dissipating the heat via the crust.

That is the way I see it.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Well we do have almost zero evidence of what the interior is actually composed of - apart from siesmography, which means we know the speed at which sound waves propagate through it.

Ie we can tell that it has a liquid interior and a solid inner core.

Personally I think the triple geospheres idea explains an awfull lot of things.

blog.hasslberger.com...

I think proof of an expanding earth, is close at hand ...

www.insidescience.org...

reply to post by Essan


Your points are interesting but you leave out an important point. What if they still fit into expansion tectonics.

From Dr Maxlow.
"For all models, an intracratonic to intracontinental spatial integrity is maintained throughout Earth ++ history during processes of Precambrian and Palaeozoic continental crustal extension, Late Palaeozoic crustal rupture, Permo-Triassic continental break-up, and Mesozoic and Cenozoic continental dispersal to the Recent. Palaeomagnetic pole data delineate diametrically opposed palaeomagnetic pole clusters for each era back to the Archaean, without the need to consider random crustal dispersion-amalgamation-dispersal cycles. The palaeopole data is further supported by palaeogeographic, palaeobiogeographic, and palaeoclimatic indicators, which define palaeoequators and palaeoclimatic zones consistent with palaeomagnetic determinations. The distribution of latitude dependent lithofacies including glacigenic strata, carbonates, coal, and faunal and floral species is shown to coincide precisely with established palaeopoles and palaeoequators for all expanding Earth models.For climatic and biotic indicators a distinct latitudinal zonation paralleling the established palaeoequator is evident and a distinct northward shift in climatic zonation suggests that an inclined Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established during the Palaeozoic and persists to the Recent. Coastal geography on expanding Earth models shows that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction. Instead, epi-continental Panthallassa and Iapetus Seas represent precursors to the modern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Tethys Sea represents a precursor of the present Eurasian continent. Emergent land surfaces during the Precambrian and Phanerozoic equate to the conventional Rodinia, Gondwana and Pangaea supercontinents and smaller sub-continents, and demonstrate a spatial intracratonic and intracontinental integrity throughout Earth history.On each spherical model constructed proto-continental development is evolutionary and defined by ++ a progressive extension of epi-continental sedimentary basins, pulsed orogenesis, eustatic and transgression-regression of epi-continental seas, and opening of modern oceans during the Mesozoic to Recent."

Geologists and subscribers to the accepted Plate Tectonics theory expect Expansion Tectonics to not only answer all those questions which they do, but explain all the additional questions it brings to the forefront.

In addition to the 3 issues you bring up, I wonder the following

1. If the core of the Earth was hot molten core why isn't the surface of the Earth superheated as well? Why only are small areas hot?
2. Rate of expansion is interesting as well. If the Earth grew quickly at some periods of time and more slowly at others could that explain many of the supporters explanations as to why?
3. The plate movements around the globe are often viewed in one or two dimensions. The Earth is a sphere and should be looked at from all three dimensions, including expansion outward.
4. Plate rifts are actually rips. Material comes up from the interior and pushes outward. Does the material being ejected measure exactly with the "subducting" material along coastlines, such as the "Ring of Fire"?
5. There are areas on the Earth that are "hotspots". How are these explained with only Plate Tectonics?
6. Its seems perfectly logical that Plate Tectonics is accurate when combined with Expansion Tectonics, but by itself Plate Tectonics is missing a ton.
7. Finally, where is the actual data on this stuff. Lots of geologists reference that its available, but I havent been able to find any of it. Its all summaries.


Google Earth is amazing if you add layers for Gravity, Tectonic Plates, Earthquakes, etc. Expansion seems obvious. Look at it, compare lakes, oceans, land for symmetry on either side and ask yourself, does it look like these fit together perfectly? I have and almost everything does.

Consider the immature theories and little explanation for things like
Gravity. Lightning. Weather. Earth's core. Phenomena such as magnetic abnormalities, wavelengths and particles that penetrate the Earth, and many others.

Instead of the conspiracy theory, its dumb ignore it, ask what if this is true. Could we be answering so many other questions?





I think we should look at this from a distance and not try to "put together the puzzle from one piece".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains Energy = Mass x Speed of Light Squared.

In 1927 Einstein remarked about special relativity, "Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."

The energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth and converted to mass.

Thoughts on this?