Is there a connection between the Expanding Earth & Electric Universe theories?

Research Project Level 2

Is there a connection between the Expanding Earth & Electric Universe theories?

Introduction

Scientific theories are akin to living organisms in that they have life cycles; they are conceived, gestate, are born, nurtured, and either flourish or perish depending on a host of different factors. And also like living organisms, they can be supported artificially and can linger on in a pale shadow of health.

In this project we will be looking at two relatively new and extremely interesting theories, those of the Expanding Earth & the Electric Universe. Furthermore, we will be investigating the possible connections and cross corroborations between them.

Both of these theories have been addressed numerous times over the years here on ATS, it is my hope that we will be able to bring together the most up to date research on both of these theories and present that information in such a way as to determine whether or not either have merit.

We will be examining each theory separately and will be asking the following questions of both:

• What is the history of each theory?
• How do they differ from their mainstream counterpart and how are they similar?
• What evidence is there to support the theory?
• What unanswered questions do they leave, what do opponents of each theory say?
• Is this opposition based on fact or agenda?
• Is there any cross corroboration between EE & EU?


Resaerch Team

SonoftheSun

SonoftheSun's work on the Is the Local Interstellar cloud affecting us in any way? thread make him an obvious choice for the Electric Universe portion of this project.; this thread was the entire reason I decided to make my application as an ATS scholar. He will be examining this theory through the filter of the above referenced questions. He brings with him a proven record of substantial research capabilities and I am extremely proud and humbled to be working with him on this endeavor.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/cu52056f84.jpg[/atsimg]

jadedANDcynical

I will be focusing on the Expanding Earth portion of this project. I have been fascinated by the idea ever since my first exposure to the notion. I bring to this project a long history of thoroughly researched posts on a wide variety of topics, including having touched upon the Expanding Earth hypothesis. I will be focusing on verifiable facts presented within the theory and assimilating the research SonoftheSun brings to the table and together we will attempt determine if there are indeed correlations between these two theories.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/iq52056f72.gif[/atsimg]



I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rising Against and all other members of the ATS research team for this forum. It is my hope that this project will reflect the quality that has been shown already and that those who follow are inspired as much as I have been by what has gone before.

Hello Everyone and Welcome to another (I hope) interesting research !!

Before I get into the heat of things, I wish to thank jadedANDcynical for inviting me to participate in what should become a challenging idea, my deepest thanks to ATS and the Moderators that support this board and finally – and most importantly – thank you, the readers, for making all of this an exciting adventure!!

The Reader will also notice that I've added more pictures than usual and this is on purpose as I feel that those pictures will stimulate your imagination as they will also bring a better understanding of the terms, terms that are explained in an etymology list on the post next to this one. I would also suggest reading those links as some are articles that are just recently written and well worth reading. Thank you.

But what exactly is the Electric Universe?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wz520a7fde.jpg[/atsimg]

The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo's Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized "gases") which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields. Much of the material considered by the Electric Universe is peer-reviewed, but not all

The theory itself is based on a simplistic point of view; if everything that exists is made of atoms and since we know that each atoms are electrically charged, then we have an electric flow that does happen between each and every one of them through a very natural occurrence and thus creating an electric chain or pattern.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kc520a7fbb.jpg[/atsimg]

Since the atom part covers most of what exists, it simply leaves interstellar space to be explained and since we now know for a fact that the known Universe is made of 99.9% plasma and since plasma is an ionised gas (electrically charged) then therefore it makes electricity in the Universe an omnipresent and constant feature.

Much like a plasma ball, it connects everything together.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mp520a8009.jpg[/atsimg]


[color=gold]A Search for Electricity on a Grander Scale


Electricity on Planet Earth

On Earth, we now know for a fact that electricity is much more than just lightning and auroras. We now have the possibility through science and technology (and it is pretty exciting) to observe atmospheric phenomena such as red sprites*1, blue jets*2, elves*3 and tigers*4.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yj520a7ff7.jpg[/atsimg]


Electricity in our Solar System

We now know for a fact that our Solar System interacts on an electric level on many stages. Interactions between magnetic fields, plasma travelling through solar winds through the vacuum of space, space tornados travelling from the sun at a million miles an hour*5, electric discharges between planets and their moons along with space quakes*6 and electric space fountains*7 ...


Electric Galaxies

Electricity is observed as everything interacts together, from comets to plasma in interstellar space, from solar systems and their electric occurrences between planets and their star, from cosmic electricity*9 to flux ropes, it all connects...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zj520a7fcd.jpg[/atsimg]


The Universe

The Electric Universe takes a simplifying leap by unifying the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near instantaneous electrostatic force. Instead of being “spooked” by the concept of action-at-a-distance, like most physicists this century, the Electric Universe accepts it as an observational fact. Anyone who has tried to force two like poles of magnets together has demonstrated action-at-a-distance. “Electromagnetic” radiation is then simply the result of an oscillating electrostatic force.

And this is where the controversy starts...Gravity

[color=gold]How are things held together? By electromagnetic forces that are yet to be researched and proved or by gravitational pull? Or how about an electric gravitational pull?

How does an electric universe differ from a nuclear universe? how is it similar?

In what areas does it lack evidence? What are the speculations?

What are the main obstacles it faces to overcome a more widespread acceptance? Do those have merit or are they agenda driven?

All excellent questions and we will do our best to answer those in the forthcoming posts.

[color=gold]As it applies to Expanding Earth, can it answer any questions that EE presents?

We will most certainly try to find out.


Thank you for reading.

~Son.


*Etymology and Sources on following post

Etymology


*1 – Red Sprites

*2 – Blue Jets

*3 – Elves

*4 – Tigers

*5 – Space Tornadoes

*6 – Space Quakes

*7 – Space Fountains


Sources


Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

The Electric Universe Part 2

Electric Universe Versus Gravity

[color=gold]How are things held together? By electromagnetic forces that are yet to be researched and proved or by gravitational pull? Or how about an electric gravitational pull?

Disclaimer – The following posts will contain many external posts as they are important to fully comprehend where the different theories come from and it makes it way easier to credit or discredit. There will also be a LOT of sources, the reason being that to get a little further into the comprehension of how this stuff works, I had to include wikis and various articles pertinent to the research. They are ALL worth a read. Thank you.


It is almost common knowledge that gravity holds everything together. This theory is simple and extremely complicated at the same time. Simple because this theory stems from the Big Bang hypothesis, where everything expanded and still does to this day, gravity being the glue that keeps everything together. It is nevertheless extremely complicated because we are now entertaining this idea much more from a mathematics point of view (special thanks to Einstein) than an observational one.

While we cannot deny that the gravity theory holds water, so to speak, it is slowly part of a gigantic puzzle that harbors other factors that would hold everything together. One of those important factors is the Electric Universe Theory. Surprisingly, this theory has been around for a long time but has only started to take serious shape when our technology permitted it; mainly from the sixties forward...actually, the more the technology permits us to observe, the more this theory blossoms...


Going against the Mainstream...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/pm520f7348.jpg[/atsimg]

Already, in 1908, Norwegian Physicist Kristian Birkeland had proposed a theory stating that the auroras were formed from powered electrical particles incoming from the Sun. This theory was disregarded, ridiculed and tossed aside by mainstream scientists until we were able to observe and see that he was right...fifty years after his death, in 1967, after receiving pertinent data from a satellite. Interestingly enough, they are now called “Birkeland Currents”...

I find it interesting when scientists go against the mainstream idea with new theories only to have them disregarded by most yet, finally acknowledged by technology.

Swedish scientist Hannes Alfvén, a scientist that spent most of his life establishing plasma physics theories is also one of those...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jn520f7376.gif[/atsimg]

He made important contributions to interplanetary physics, magnetospheric physics, the method for calculating particle orbits, and the modern understanding of comet tails, frozen-in magnetic flux, the magnetosphere (protective plasma covering the earth), plasma dynamics, the solar system, and the nature of the universe. For decades, several of his most important ideas were widely considered bunk, but these theories have gradually been proven by advancing technologies of the 1970s and '80s.

As early as 1937, he proposed the idea of a galactic magnetic field. Doubted by his peers, it would only be proven that he was right, in 1973, after the phenomenon was confirmed by satellite observations.

In the sixties, he came out with a new theory, a large scale filamentary structure for the universe, contradicting the Big Bang theory. Even though he was honored the Nobel Prize for Physics in the 70’s, his latest theory is still considered a controversy. Question: Is it really a controversy or is it simply that we cannot prove it yet, through technology?

EU Theory’s Biggest Adversary:The Big Bang

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gd520f7326.jpg[/atsimg]

The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.[

Let’s have a closer look at those observed phenomena:

[color=gold]Abundance of light elements

Interesting to note that this phenomenon is based on the Nucleosynthesis Theory which states:

Thanks to the pioneering efforts of George Gamow and his collaborators, there now exists a satisfactory theory as to the production of light elements in the early Universe. In the very early Universe the temperature was so great that all matter was fully ionized and dissociated.

~Continued on next post...

Emphasis is mine. Fully ionized. As in fully electrically charged? Am I getting this right or am I pushing the envelope?

Atoms and molecules are electrically neutral in that the number of negatively charged electrons is exactly equal to the number of positively charged protons. Much of the "normal matter" that we find around us is in this form. However, particularly when there are energy sources available, atoms or molecules can gain or lose electrons and acquire a net electrical charge. This process is called ionization.

Thank you.

[color=gold]Cosmic microwave background

There are two factors that I would like to highlight regarding the CMB. First:

Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB). The word "isotropic" means the same in all directions;

This is based on redshifts observations. I will further discuss in the Hubble Diagram as there is a major flaw. The second:

If the universe was once very hot and dense, the photons and baryons would have formed a plasma, ie a gas of ionized matter coupled to the radiation through the constant scattering of photons off ions and electrons.

Emphasis is mine. A plasma, ie a gas of ionized matter coupled to the radiation. Is it just me or is this statement also contain a mention of electrically charged matter, coupled to the radiation ??

Why this is overlooked is beyond me.

[color=gold]Large scale structure


Let’s get into the juicy stuff. The Structure of the Universe:

it takes a very long time (up to several billion years) for the light from the most distant galaxies and quasars to reach us. Not only the light we receive from these objects is redshifted, but we also see these objects as they were during the early stages in the evolution of the Universe. In this sense, the redshift z provides a universal clock and can be used as a measure of time. Observations of distant galaxies is much like a time travel into the past.

Now, how cool is that? Very, very cool. Once again, calculations are based on two elements, first, redshifts (which I’ll talk about below in the Hubble diagram section] and second, those measurements are based on the fact that the universe is growing from an isotropic (remember? It means the same in all directions...) point of view which I will also talk about in the Hubble diagram section. You will understand why as you read it.


The Structure of the Universe according to Hannes Alfven:

For 30 years, based on plasma physics, Alfven and his colleagues proposed an alternative cosmology to both the Steady State and the Big Bang cosmologies. While the Big Bang theory was preferred by most astrophysicists for nearly 30 years, it is being challenged by new observations, especially over the last decade. In particular, the discovery of coherent structures of galaxies hundreds of millions of light years in length and the large-scale streaming of superclusters of galaxies at velocities that may approach 1,000 kilometers per second present problems that are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the Big Bang theory.

That statement alone is a blow in the face of the isotropic point of view. Alfven wasn’t comfortable with the idea of maths having an answer for everything without an observable angle. He wasn’t comfortable either with maths stating that the universe is thirteen and and a half billion years old.

So, are there observations that state that the math could be wrong, that the isotropic point of view could be wrong and that the Big Band theory in itself could be wrong?

Thanks to technology, there is:


[color=gold]Hubble diagram

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wf520f7338.gif[/atsimg]

Edwin Hubble's classic article on the expanding universe appeared in PNAS in 1929 [Hubble, E. P. (1929) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 15, 168–173]. The chief result, that a galaxy's distance is proportional to its redshift

To better understand what I am about to look into, here is a simple explanation of a redshift:

In physics (namely astrophysics), redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object moving away from the observer is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

~Continued on next post...

Simply put, to evaluate the distance of a galaxy, we would look at its redshift, the redder the redshift, the further away the object lies. The redshift permits calculations of the isotropic point of view, that everything is moving at an equal distance as it slowly decreases in speed; as it permits the calculation of time or time clock or the age of the universe, from a mathematical point of view, measured from redshift observations. Those observations are based on the theory of recessed velocity as everything expands.

Problemo Numero Uno:

The Big Bang theory requires all matter and galaxies to have been created simultaneously 15 billion years ago. But many young galaxies have been observed which must have been created more recently. Moreover, these younger objects, although demonstrably nearby, have large redshifts which cannot be due to recession velocity in an expanding universe. The fundamental assumption in the Big Bang is that extragalactic redshifts are caused only by the velocity of recession. It is shown here how every observational test which can be made on galaxies, and even stars, contradicts the assumption.

Oops. The American Astronomer Halton Arp has spent most of his life studying redshifts and has become a serious opponent to the Big Bang theory. He has written multiple books regarding his findings and you will find links to his works and his wiki down in the last post.

Problemo Secondo:

For those of you who have viewing capabilities, here is a you tube video that explains a newer redshift observation that contradicts – once again – the Big Bang theory. Discovered in 2010, Supernova PS1-10afx defies all explanations. Its brightness is 30 times higher than what it should be presumed on its location and distance; along with a redder than normal color, once again, based on the assumed distance and location.

Its brightness is that of a hundred billion suns and the measurements would situate it at 9 billion years away at the source and that it took more than half of the universe’s age to reach us.

Problem is, this Supernova, according to measurements should be much much much further away, almost at the edge of the known universe. So what is causing the brightness, immense luminosity and redder ratio?

Only an activation of an electrically charged environment would explain this phenomenon.

Here is the summary and the Video:

Big Bang Theory takes another kick to the groin - Supernova defies
explanation, 'too bright' to fit Standard Model of Supernovas.

Supernova PS1 - 10afx "no existing theoretical model can
satisfactorily explain" and has the luminosity of 100 BILLION Suns,
based on it's 'presumed' location and distance.

For those of you, not having a viewing capability, here is the culprit:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/fs520f735f.gif[/atsimg]

I don’t know about you but stuff like this blows my mind !!!

No one here will deny gravity when it comes to everything being held together. But why does an Electric Universe Theory – along with a gravitational one - doesn’t get more attention?

It seems to me that it’s an important part of the equation.

So, why is the scientific community driven to push and uphold the Big Bang theory hypothesis?

Is there an agenda?

Sure, the EU theory also has flaws and we will look into this in following posts in the weeks to come but then again, so does the BB theory.

There are still numerous questions to be answered and to be brutally honest, we’ve barely scratched the surface so far...

Thank you, once again, for reading.

~Son.

Sources


Hannes Alfven

Hannes Alfven (1908-1995)

Kristian Birkeland

Big Bang

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Ionization and Plasmas

The Cosmic Microwave Background

Formation of the large-scale structure in the universe:simulations

Hubble’s diagram and cosmic expansion

Redshift

Halton Arp

Observation s which contradict the hypothesis of a big bang universe by Halton Arp

b]What is the history of the Expanding Earth theory?

I mention in the introduction that we will be exploring two "relatviely new" theories in this research project and that I would be tackling the Expanding Earth theory in particular. The Expanding Earth (also called Growing Earth) theory has versions going back quite some time, in point of fact it predates Plate Tectonics to a fair degree.

The first person we come to is Roberto Mantovani, an Italin geologis and violinist. He had the notion that the continents were once all joined together and fractured at what has become the present day oceans.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/gm52139c3e.png[/atsimg]

Roberto Mantovani, violinist and scientist,born in Parma on March 25, 1854. He was part of an orches-tral team reaching the volcanic Réunion Island in 1878. During his stay on the island, Mantovani had the occasion of observing the huge volcanic fractures on the Indian ocean shore near the town of Saint Denis. He argued that, on a global scale, all the continents might have undergone the same disjunction processes as the volcanic flanks. The global fractures are today the oceans. After several years from his observations, Mantovani published his idea in 1889 in the Bulletin of the Societé des Sciences et des Arts of Saint Denis, where the Italian established his family and became Consul of Italy.

Roberto Mantovani an Italian defender of the continental drift and planetary expansion

We, of course cannot look at Explanding Earth without also looking at Plate Tectonics, the two theories are bound more closely than most people, in general, realize. To whom does Plate tectonics owe it's origins?

One could say that Alfred Wegener is the father of Plate Tectonic Theory. Wegener noticed that the east coast of South America lined up almost perfectly with the west coast of Africa. This was certainly not a new observation. In 1620, Francis Bacon called attention to the similarities in the continental outlines of eastern South America and western Africa.

Alfred Wegener - Biographical Information

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ss520bd380.jpg[/atsimg]

If we look further we will see that the person who is widely credited as being the originator of Plate Tectonics quotes Mantonvani in his works:, indeed he is encourged to do so as a means of strengthening his own arguments; thus the "Father of Plate Tectonics" is using a proponent of Expanding Earth as a pillar for his own theory.

His (Mantovani) more famous paper, quoted later by Wegener, was published in 1909, in a popular magazine 'Je m’instruis'. The paper contains the first suggestive mapping of the breakup of the Pangea continent based on geological arguments. The great novelty in the 1909 paper was the mapping of the Pacific view: dotted lines were drown between pairs of geographical points which once were in contact while today are separated by the huge extension of the Pacific basin.

added for clerification

Looking a little forward to a question that will be examined in more detail in a subsequent post, let us ponder this tidbit:

The 1909 Pacific map was forgotten, and only Mantovani’s Pangea representation is reproduced today in some books dealing with the history of science.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ji52139c89.png[/atsimg]



Does this represent an agenda to give more weight to one theory over the other?
(preceeding two quotes are sourced from first linked article in this post.)

---continued next post---

One of the next significant proponents of the Expanding Earth theory we come to is Samuel Warren Carey, whose book, Expanding Earth, sets the stage for the next generation of scientists that are interested in the theory and works as a proponent.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/hq520bd3d5.jpg[/atsimg]

And again, we find that the two theories are entwined with one another:

He received his MSc in 1934. It was at this time that Carey read the 1924 translation of Wegener's The Origin of Continents and Oceans, the book largely responsible for introducing the concept of continental drift to English-speaking academics. He was to become a key figure in advancing this concept and plate tectonic models that followed.

...

Despite the eventual acceptance of the plate expansion and subduction paradigm over Carey's hypothesis, he is widely regarded as making substantial contributions to the field of tectonics and considerable influence in the initial acceptance of continental drift over a static model. In 1946, he became the founding professor of geology at the University of Tasmania. He retired from this position 30 years later in 1976.

emphasis mine

Samuel Warren Carey wikipedia article

He is a noted and highly cited scientist with an impressive career, however the conclusion he reaches is much ridiculed within the halls of academia whilst simultaneously his research is used as a basis for their own theories; those of Plate Tectonics. This is nothing new, different conclusions being derived from the same data sets have occurred throughout history.

Contemporary with both Wegener and Carey, we find Ott Christoph Hilgenberg who is credited with making the first 3 d representation of what the continents would look like on a smaller globe:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/pa520bd3c3.jpg[/atsimg]

Inspired by Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, Hilgenberg worked intensely in the area of the Expanding Earth theory. Hilgenberg had started writing his publication "Vom wachsenden Erdball" ("The Expanding Globe") during Wegener's lifetime. It was meant as a continuation of Wegener’s work. When Wegener died unexpectedly in 1930, Hilgenberg posthumously dedicated "Vom wachsenden Erdball" to him. With four model globes, Hilgenberg was the first to show how all continental shelves would fit neatly together, if the Earth’s diameter were about half the size of today.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/dd520bd3e5.jpg[/atsimg]


And yet again we see the close relationship between the two competing theories of tectonics., this time a proponent of Expanding Earth is using the work of Plate Tectonics giant as his inspiration. I find this encouraging in that I think that the true reality is likely something of a mix between the two theories; more on that in forthcoming posts.

---continued in next post---

Coming in to more recent times, we have the work of Neal Adams, a graphic designer and comic book artist. Many people belittle him simply because of this. What they fail to realize is that Neal has made a career of visually depicting ideas and concepts from written works, such as taking the script for a comic and turning that into a visual representation of what the author is describing.

He is often described as using psuedoscience to support his claims and it is this that most critics raise when objecting to Neal's works. His 3-d animations of the growth of the earth is extremely compelling and quite impactful. As is the case with anything that gains popularty, there is also quite a bit of vocal criticism; we will be exploring the oppositioin in greater detail in forthcoming posts.

For those of you, like myself who have a more tedchnical leaning, Dr. James Maxlow an Australian geologist, brings us closer to the modern era of academic study of the phenomenon of a growing earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mu520bd3af.jpg[/atsimg]

Dr. Maxlow's interests in Expansion Tectonics stem from a dissatifaction with plate tectonics in explaining geological phenomena. As part of his PhD research into global tectonics, he created models of an expanding Earth from the present back to the early Archaean Era. This is the first time that both oceanic and continental crusts have been used to reconstruct plate assemblage for the entire 100% of Earth history. Models were then used to layer global geographical, climatic, geophysical and geological data to quantify an Earth expansion process (note: Earth expansion = growing Earth).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ok520bd39b.JPG[/atsimg]

And one final scietist I want to mention is Stavros T Tassos, a greek geologist who has a number of publications which can be found listed here at the Growing Earth Consortium website

An excerpt, and a preview to the potential connection between EE & EU:

The primordial Earth had a diameter about 40% its present size. Up until now about 2/3 of this original number of 2H nuclei have been transformed into bulk matter in two distinct phases: The first from 4000-200 m.y. a., when a granitic continental type crust, with a thickness of 300-350 km, was formed. In the second phase (200 m.y.a. to present), the Fe-rich oceanic crust and more than 90% of the rigid mantle were formed. During orogenic episodes, caused by an intensification of laser clustering, degeneracy pressure is reduced and the Earth tends to contract. The net result of its electrical unbalance is a pulsation of the Earth (expansion-contraction), which is superimposed upon its general expansion due to EM generation and emplacement processes.

EXCESS MASS STRESS TECTONICS (EMST) : AN OUTLINE OF THE HYPOTHESIS

This brings us up to date on the history and study of the Expanding Earth theory and provides us some directions to take our following study. I would highly suggest that everyone read through all of the linked material in order to have a firm base upon which to rest as we further explore these two theories in greater detail.

Welcome to this third part of the Electric Universe theory. Once again, many external links, pictures and source links to get through this material in an easy to read platform. Hope you enjoy!

Electric Universe Evidence

[color=gold]The Sun – our Star

Here is an interesting find – which was published in March 2013 – stating that the Sun is not an oblate spheroid, after new scientific measurements.

Astronomers have recently taken more precise measurements of the Sun’s shape over several years. They found that it was rounder and less variable than they expected from theory.
If gravity and centrifugal force from its rotation were the primary influences on its shape, then the Sun should have a larger equatorial bulge.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bb5224f319.gif[/atsimg]


I find this segment extremely interesting as it might help Jaded in his research of correlations between the Electric Universe and an Expanding Earth.

But it gets better:

It’s shape would be determined by electromagnetic forces, not by gravity and centrifugal force. It’s rotation would also be driven electromagnetically, like an electric motor

The supposition here is assumed through calculations that our Sun would be powered externally, by galactic currents. Once again, technology is permitting us to see what had already been proposed, over a hundred years ago, yet dismissed.

Actually, in the early 1900s, Birkeland (remember the Birkeland Currents?) was working on proving plasma discharges that would be evidence of an important electrical occurrence along gravity studies, which was, nevertheless, avoided in all astronomical studies.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/te5224f2c7.jpg[/atsimg]

Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and space; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the electrical nature of stars[2] and galaxies; and the size, history and age of the universe.

It is becoming clear that new theories that focus on the Electric Universe Theory are marginalized in comparison to the Big Bang Theory. Papers and letters are surfacing, stating that there is a definite agenda for pushing the gravity envelope but I’ll keep that for the next post.


[color=gold]The Milky Way – our Galaxy


In this segment, gravity takes a serious plunge.

As early as the 1600s, Kepler had shown that orbital motions, dictated by gravity, are under laws that state that the gravity becomes a diminishing force, at the square of the distance. All nice and dandy for an explanation of orbital gravitational pulls on our Solar System planets but it gets messy when we look at our Galaxy and furthermore, the Universe, with today’s technology.

To compensate a lack of electromagnetic forces at play, we theorize of black holes and dark matter, most of which are computer simulated, do bring certain answers forward to theories that have more holes than swiss cheese but are not yet observable facts.

Basically, to assume that everything is held up together through gravity incoming from the center of our galaxy is pure fantasy. It just doesn’t work...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/xc5224f308.jpg[/atsimg]

The observed motion of stars simply do not match the required pattern, but they do accord with the universally observed pattern of electromagnetically motivated plasma flows. Galaxies are electrically organized structures. Any other concept is the outcome of mental blindness to the observable facts - or pure illusion.

Quite a statement there... :

Galaxies are electrically organized structures.

That statement, let me emphasize that again, is not founded on measurements and calculations but on observable facts.

~ Continued on next post...

[color=gold]The Large Structure – our Universe

The latest studies tend to demonstrate that our Universe is connected like a network. Our Universe grows like a brain, not that it is a thinking entity by itself but connections are appearing in a way that was unknown to us, until very recently.

The Universe is like our brain


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/xm5224f2dc.jpg[/atsimg]

According to a study published in Nature's Scientific Reports, the universe may be growing in the same way as a giant brain - with the electrical firing between brain cells 'mirrored' by the shape of expanding galaxies.

I like that term, electric firing.

Much like our brain which is filled with electricity, we are slowly discovering that everything in our Universe is somehow connected, in much the same way. We now have the technology to factually observe plasma currents, plasma fields and plasma filaments within our own area of space to conclude that the phenomenon extends to the whole and that galaxies are connected together.

Galaxies are like necklace beads


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ma5224f2ed.jpg[/atsimg]

Now, an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.

The studies are starting to show results that this isn’t any random occurrence. There is a structure to it. The spirals spin with their axis aligned.

I am leaving the reader with a final question on this post, which is as follows:

If we were to follow a theory of orbital motions through measurements of mass and gravity, what would have to be so outrageously gigantic at the center of the Universe to hold everything together?

Following what I have shown here today, it seems like a logical answer would be that electricity and electromagnetism are important parts of the equation.

Oh, I’ve heard some of you think “God...” to that question above. While such an answer opens up a whole new can of worms, this is not a subject I will get into within this research.


[color=gold]Questions...Questions...

So then, why is the Electric Universe Theory still overlooked? Why is the scientific community still pushing the Big Bang and Gravity theory?

The next post will look into the agenda that drives the scientific community. And yes, there is one.

Thank you, once again, for reading.



[color=gold]Sources


Overwhelming Electric Universe Evidence Everywhere

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Galaxies like necklace beads

Physicists find evidence that the Universe is a giant brain

Round Sun vs Foursquare Theory

In what ways do Expansion Tectonics differ from Plate Tectonics?

There is one obvious answer to this seemingly simple question, and that is that the theory posits that the radius of the earth has not remained constant throughout Earth's history.

This conclusion has been reached by numerous scientists throughout the early history of the Geo-sciences and indeed the idea of a growing planet answers many of the contradictions presented in Plate Tectonics.

And though the answer may, at first, appear to be as simple as the original question, in examining the topic in greater detail one is forced to confront the fact that everything one knows about the universe must be called in to question by the possibility that the theory is true.

Another key difference, that is tied to the first, between Expansion & Plate tectonics models is subduction.

Plate tectonics requires that excess crust (that is continually being made) is subducted beneath existing crust and disappears into the furnace below. It is proposed that convection currents cause a (random) conveyor belt type of transport of floating solidified rock.

One description of the movement of the continents that falls in line with Pate Tectonics goes like this:

Tectonic plates probably developed very early in the Earth's 4.6-billion-year history, and they have been drifting about on the surface ever since-like slow-moving bumper cars repeatedly clustering together and then separating.

What is a tectonic plate?

Expansion Tectonics removes the need for subduction, and can in many ways refute the possibility of subduction in the first place. We will be looking at the evidence in a forthcoming post for this assertion in greater depth.

For an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to about 200 million years ago the modern ocean basins did not exist. At that time all continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 52% of the present Earth radius. Instead of the modern oceans, a network of relatively shallow seas covered low lying parts of the Pangaean supercontinent. All of the relatively young ocean floor volcanic crusts, as well as much of the ocean waters and atmosphere, were retained within the mantle, where they originated.

Expansion Tectonics Explained

The next, and probably most, important difference between the two theories, is that Plate Tectonics is considered to be “Settled Science.” If one looks closer into that phrase, one will find that it is almost universally linked with climate science and the debate surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming; though that is by far the only thing to which the phrase can be applied.



Plate Tectonics is considered “Settled” as is the Standard Model; the Nuclear Universe.

Is it possible that the foundational assumptions of the theoretical sciences all express a common misunderstanding? From cosmology, the "queen of the sciences," a core dogma of the 20th century filtered down through every discipline, constraining our ideas about galaxy and star formation and ultimately (from the same underlying assumptions) all of the space sciences, infecting our views of earth history and even our sense of what it means to be human. The core dogma was the idea that gravity alone, seen through the lens of general relativity, rules the cosmos. Dispelling this most common misconception has become the essential requirement for scientific progress, since all of the new evidence makes clear that we live in an Electric Universe. 

Exposing the Myths of "Settled Science"

The following video, while lengthy, presents very compelling arguments for asking difficult questions regardless of what obtaining the answers to means to the current world view.



Wikipedia, that great bastion of impartiality, has the following within the Expanding Earth entry on it's site:

While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth.

“While suggested historically...” to me indicates that there was more than a passing interest in the idea originally. There was a great deal of research that went in to the conclusions that Montovani, Carey, and many others reached in regards to the growth of the planet.

“Has rejected” implies to me that no discussion will even be entertained on the matter and to so much as broach the possibility of the subject endangers one's academic career. Is this blind acceptance of one theory over another, regardless of the merits, not a clear indication of stagnation?

“Scientific Consensus” according to Wikipedia is:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

“Opinion...implies general agreement...is not part of the scientific method...may be based...” sure seems to leave a lot of wiggle room to me.

More from the Expanding Earth wiki:

There are 3 forms of the expanding earth hypothesis.
1. Earth's mass has remained constant, and thus the gravitational pull at the surface has decreased over time;
2. Earth's mass has grown with the volume in such a way that the surface gravity has remained constant;
3. Earth's gravity at its surface has increased over time, in line with its hypothesized growing mass and volume;

From what I have discovered, the 3rd version is the most scientists (and yes, there a lot of them from around the world studying this presently) support as being the one with the greatest probability of being the case.

More wiki:

The theory had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action.[9] During the 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics initially based on the assumption that Earth's size remains constant, and relating the subduction zones to burying of lithosphere at a scale comparable to seafloor spreading,[9] became the accepted explanation in the Earth Sciences.

emphasis mine

You mean, like magnetism and other “action-at-a-distance” forces that the Standard Model has to invent strange maths for?

In the early days of radio, very little was known about how the signals traveled, through what medium they traversed (this is still being researched), what effect they had depending on how you configured the receiving circuitry, etc.

Did this stop radio from being an observable phenomena?

The World Science entry for Expansion Tectonics states the following:

There are many problem the current (and newer) plate tectonic theory cannot explain including the fact that when you take away the seabed floor piece by piece in reverse order of its age, that all the continents fit together with little or no modification. "Expansion" tectonics is now going through a renaissance with many geologists around the world looking towards expansion tectonics for predicting where new oil fields are located, and where and when earthquakes will happen.

The biggest questions people have are two-fold with expansion tectonics: 1) what is causing the expansion, 2) where did the water come from and why wouldn't the earth be all covered in water 200 million years ago when the planet was smaller.

They then go on to list 85 researchers, 35 books, 19 websites, and 84 abstracts related to the various questions posed by the theory of an Expanding Earth. That seems to be somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's paltry notes and bibliography.

Does this represent some of the (potential) agenda to keep EU & EE from being seriously considered and discussed within 'traditional' academic circles?

Coming next, the evidence...

Where's the Beef?

What poof is there that the earth is expanding, what evidence is presented for this remarkable claim, is there empirical, measured data to support the hypothesis, or is this merely an Internet fad with nothing more substantial than a flashy illustration done by a graphic designer?



Note: I will depart from my usual practice of embedding links within the content of the post and will follow SonofhteSun's example and include a bibliography post as many of my explanations will necessitate references to multiple sources to make each point.

Let's go ahead and take a little closer look at the basis for Neil's animation:

[1]

This is a map of the ocean floor depicting the age of the rock. Take particular note to see that it seems to be symmetrical from the ridges encircling the globe. What Neil has done is taken this data and placed it on a globe rather than a flat map. He has then taken each age band of ocean crust out by date in reverse order while also shrinking the globe each time.

Are there bonafide scientists looking at the theory with the critical eye of science whilst also keeping an open mind against dogmatic approaches?

From October 4-9 of 2011 in Erice, Sicily, Italy at the “Ettore Majorana” Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture the Interdisciplinary Workshop on THE EARTH EXPANSION EVIDENCE: A Challenge for Geology, Geophysics and Astronomy was held. [2]

Scientists from around the world attended and gave presentations, in person and in absentia. [3]

Subduction

EE states that there is no subduction, but rather a gradual growth of both surface area and volume of the earth.

Plate Tectonics maintains that subduction is driven by convection currents within a plastic mantle, and is dependent upon horizontal movement of the plates.

Plate tectonics tells us that the Earth's rigid outer shell (lithosphere) is broken into a mosaic of oceanic and continental plates which can slide over the plastic aesthenosphere, which is the uppermost layer of the mantle. The plates are in constant motion. Where they interact, along their margins, important geological processes take place, such as the formation of mountain belts, earthquakes, and volcanoes.

[4]

[8]

What PT does not take in to account is vertical motion of plates other than when they are descending into the depths of the earth.

The problems posed by vertical tectonic movements are reviewed, including evidence for large areas of submerged continental crust in today’s oceans. It is concluded that the fundamental tenets of plate tectonics might be wrong.

[5]

Why might subduction not be possible?

As depth increases, so does pressure. The deepest layer of rock will be under the most pressure

If, in high pressure states, the movement of atoms and molecules is limited, the heat energy content will be low and heat transport slower. Thus temperature and heating capacity are low and the internal energy is in the form of electronic-chemical energy, i.e., free electron movement and/or compression of electron shells within the atoms of the solid

[6]

This is saying that as pressure increases within a solid, it's capacity for heat absorption and transfer drops. Lower temperatures at depth indicate solid mass rather than liquid, thus negating the ability of convection currents.

Well, is the mantel liquid or solid?

Materials with viscosities of the order of 10^20 poises and higher, can only be treated as a solid

[6]

What about the energy deeper down, in what form is it stored, if not heat?

It is only when the electro-chemically stored energy is transformed into kinetic energy of atoms (via vibration, and/or rotation, and/or translation) that the heat content increases. Only then, will a solid’s internal energy exist as kinetic energy of its atoms and heat and internal energy can be truly considered equivalent. Conditions inside Earth where its internal energy can exist and be released as kinetic energy of its atoms, are only possible at, or very near to its surface, i.e. at lower pressures.

[6]

Magma is only a surface phenomena in regards to the earth, all else below a certain depth is solid.

In order for PT and subduction to happen, you have to have seafloor spreading:

The ocean floor is far from having the uniform characteristics that convey- or-type spreading would imply (Keith, 1993).

…

more detailed seismic research has contradicted this simple model. It has shown that the mantle is asymmetrical in relation to the midocean ridges and has a complicated mosaic structure independent of the strike of the ridge.

[5]

In other words, the entire 'plate' of oceanic crust is many pieces. As is the mantle beneath, which is supposed to be homogenous and contain convecting currents and plumes of hot magma; if this is the case, why is it also segmented like a mosaic?

Also, the continental cratons, have not moved from their present relative positions:

However, evidence from seismic-velocity, heat-flow, and gravity studies has been building up for several decades, showing that ancient continental shields have very deep roots and that the low-velocity asthenosphere is very thin or absent beneath them (e.g., Jordan, 1975, 1978; MacDonald, 1963; Pollack and Chapman, 1977). Seismic tomography has merely reinforced the message that continental cratons, particularly those of Archean and Early Proterozoic age, are “welded” to the underlying mantle, and that the concept of thin (less than 250 km thick) lithospheric plates moving thousands of kilometers over a global asthenosphere is unrealistic.

[5]emphasis mine

In other words, they haven't drifted.

In order for subduction to occur, the oceanic crust has to be able to move on top of the mantel:

If negative buoyancy is responsible for subduction, complete decoupling is necessary between the 100 km thick plate and the underlying mantle. In other words the "ridge push - positive buoyancy" and the "trench pull - negative buoyancy" must exceed the friction between the plate and the upper mantle, as well as the strength of the underlying mantle.

[6]

This cannot happen, however:

For the decoupling of a world wide ocean layer, of an area of ~5´ 10 14 m^2 (Earth’s surface area) and 100 km thickness, the energy required is of the order of 10^16 W. That is about three orders of magnitude greater than the ~3x10^13 W of Earth’s heat flow. In other words the thermal energy required to overcome internal friction is two to three orders of magnitude greater than the ~3x10^13 W available. If such thermal energies were supplied the temperatures at the core - mantle boundary should be from 120,000 C to 1,200,000 C. At such temperatures the whole mantle would be a convecting liquid melt, or actually would burn. But the estimated temperatures, even by plate tectonics advocates, do not exceed 5,000 C.

[6]

continued next post...

What about other sources of heat within the mantel?

Radioactive decay can by no means provide the heat energy required for convection. ... These concentrations are extremely small, and of the order of 80 ppb. In the Moon, the concentration of radioactive elements is more than three times greater. Following that reasoning radioactive decay causes mantle convection, and the Moon should therefore have a vigorously convecting mantle instead of a non-convecting mantle, as we observe.

Finally, primordial heat can not be the energy source either. ... With the present rate of heat loss, that amount can only last for about 2 billion years. This is however a very conservative estimate, ... If the heat energy requirements for convection are between one or two orders of magnitude greater, this primordial energy can only last from 200 to 20 million years!

[6]

There is not enough heat present, period.

Are there other obstacles to subduction?

The viscosity of the asthenosphere, even by plate tectonics advocates, is no more than one order of magnitude lower than that of the overlying material. It is like saying that a vertical nail will eventually penetrate into a piece of wood simply because is 2-3% heavier, let alone that such density inversion is wholly imaginary since all available evidence indicates density increases with depth in our Earth.

[6]emphasis mine

So, we have a less dense crust that is supposed to be penetrating in to and then melting within a denser, solid mantel.

Subduction is not possible

What about earthquakes, subduction ones specifically?

Excess Mass (EM) and Transformation of Matter

It is proposed that EM is added concentrically at the core-mantle interface and ascends to the surface through zones of weakness within the mantle.

[6]


As these wedges of Excess Mass rise through the mantel they pile up upon themselves and push out the wedges they are ascending through.

'Subduction Zones' are in actuality Benioff fracture zones [7], which are due to extruded wedges rather than sub-ducting plates:

Case-histories of great earthquakes are then reviewed to highlight the overall analogies. The similarity of the vertical displacements shown by these earthquakes (Chile 1960, Alaska 1964, …) leads to a common interpretation necessitating resort to a prevailing uprising of lithospheric material.

This interpretation is supported by the inspection of the irregularities of the hypocentre distribution along the Wadati-Benioff zones. Moreover, in the case of great South American earthquakes, a volcanic eruptions-earthquakes correlation is clearly recognisable. A thorough revision of the pure elastic rebound model of great earthquakes occurrence and a complete overcoming of the large scale subduction concept is then needed.

[8]

What's more, there is evidence of this Excess Mass in conjunction with these zones:

The ~1500 km wide and ~5000 km long belts of positive free-air gravity anomalies (in Burchfiel et.al. 1982) imply the presence of EM above Earth’s high seismicity Benioff zones. The strong relationship of volcanoes, earthquakes, and positive gravity anomalies has been noted by prominent scientists. Gutenberg in 1951, writes : " There is a strong correlation between lines of active volcanoes, lines of earthquakes originating at a depth of 80 to 150 km, and positive gravity anomalies (mass surplus within the uppermost 60 to 80 km), as well as a correlation between recently extinct volcanoes and lines of earthquakes originating at depths between 150 and 250 km..."

[6]

The Great Sumatra Quake is but one example from which the anomalies in subduction theory can be demonstrated:

Chile

A large seismic event struck the Chilean coast at 19.10:40 UT on May 22, 1960 (Plafker and Savage, 1970; Cifuentes, 1989; Cifuentes and Silver, 1989). The hypocenter was at 38.05°S – 72.34°W and the focal depth was estimated around 35 km, similar to the Sumatra earthquake. A recent relocation (Krawczyk and the SPOC Team, 2003) provides a more western and slightly deeper hypocenter > 73° 05’ W, 38° 15’ S, H = 38.5 km).

…

The records suggest that a large slow and silent foreshock took place on the deepest portion of the fault 15 minutes before the main shock, with a seismic moment comparable to that of the main event (Plafker and Savage, 1970; Kanamori and Cipar, 1974; Lund, 1982; Cifuentes, 1989; Cifuentes and Silver, 1989).

…

In this case, the rupture would have to nucleate in the subcrustal ductile lithosphere where the stress produced by the subducting slab would dissipate.

…

Alaska

In the late afternoon of March 27, 1964, the second largest earthquake (but eventually the largest on recent reassessment of magnitude by Okal – seminar at INGV headquarters) ever experienced by mankind struck the gulf of Alaska, with epicentre (61.0°N, 147.7°W) about 150 km east of Anchorage, near College Fiord (Anonymous, 1964). In the map attached to the first available report (Anonymous, 1964) a delineation of the uplifted and subsided zones is drawn (Figure 10b).

As in the Sumatra earthquake, in the Alaska seismic event a long belt – at least 500 km – of subsided crust followed an inner zone from near Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island. A subsidence of up to 2.0 m was recorded. An emergence zone with a peak uplift of 8 m was recognized in the external region facing the Pacific. It was probably of the same length as the subsided one.

[8]

So here in two 'subduction events,' we have evidence of extrusion in the form of uplift that far out measures any amount of crustal rebound that might occur.

There are many other 'subduction events' which are quite anomalous beyond these two:

Taiwan

On September 21 1999, a magnitude Mw=7.6 earthquake (not listed in Table 1) occurred near the town of Chi-Chi, Taiwan (23.85°N, 120.81°E), causing more than 2400 dead. The earthquake was a ‘subduction-related’ crustal event (depth=7.0-10.0 km) (Abrahamson et al., 1999; Shin et al., 1999; Cattin et al., 2004).

…

The interpretation was judged problematic because, albeit a subduction event, the surface deformation (Lin et al., 2001; Johnson and Segall, 2004) was steeper than the expected sub-horizontal fault in the initial superficial segment of a subducting slab (Seno, 2000; Seno et al., 2000).

…

The historical Calabrian earthquake sequence of 1783

On 5 February 1783 a seismic sequence occurred in Calabria, southern Italy, along the superficial part of the Sicilian-Calabrian arc and the Wadati-Benioff zone.

…

I cite this sequence as example of slow propagation of stress along an arc, of documented sparse punctuated episodes of surface masses sliding triggered by earthquakes – which contribute to the spreading of an orogen in geological time –, and of all these occurrence of phenomena just on an orogen in a documented present state of uplifting (e.g. see Calabrian coastal terrace analysis in Valensise and Pantosti, 1992; Cucci, 2004; Cucci and Tertulliani, 2006). Further possibly coseismic uplift occurred during the Calabrian earthquake of 1905 (Sept. 8, lat. 38.67, lon. 16.07, Io=X MCS), as documented by terraces creation along Calabrian Tyrrhenian coasts (Cucci and Tertulliani, 2006).

[8]emphases mine

continued next post

Bibliography Post

[1] Age, Spreading Rates and Spreading Asymmetry of the World's Ocean Crust

[2] 37th Course of the International School of Geophysics

[3] Book of Extended Abstracts

[4] Earthquakes and Plate Tectonis

[5] Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat

[6] Excess Mass Stress Tectonics:AN OUTLINE OF THE HYPOTHESIS

[7] Wadati-Benoiff zone

[8] Geodynamics of the Wadati-Benioff zone earthquakes: The 2004 Sumatra earthquake and other great earthquakes

Here are the linked sources for the most recent series of posts, I will be referring back to this bibliography in future posts and will pick up the numbering system in subsequent bibliography posts as necessary.

Please note, that while I have quoted extensively from the referenced works, there is a great deal more within each document that is germain to the topic at hand, and it would behoove anyone interested in further discussion to digest the referenced material. The Book of Extended Abstracts will be featured in depth within forthcoming posts, so I would highly recommend that work above all else.

Thank you for reading, and I hope that the information I have presented has shown how much validity the study of an Expanding Earth has among honest scientists and is not just an ignorant and somewhat suspect collection of YouTube videos.

Very interesting and well put together thread!

Kudos to you and SOS for sharing this research to the fine members of ATS! S & F!

While I tend to agree that the Universe is electric in nature I do wonder if the Earth breathes. If so, it will expand and retract over the course of time.

Did any of your research suggest that as being a possibility or is that just me living in a dream world? haha!

a reply to: MamaJFrom my research, it may very well, be breathing, just not in the same manner as human beings.

To go into the subject at any depth requires a great deal of debate. Again, for myself, there is a great possibility that gasses are produced in abundance from within, that would in essence, expand the earth, over geologic time.