Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:32 pm

Correction, it should not read, "a hollow earth under decreased pressure," because mnemeth1's point was that the gravity increased when the earth was captured by the sun. Sorry! I really do drink too much coffee and tea all day. There is only one problem with the hollow earth--what is reversing the poles, if there is nothing inside?

In The Electric Universe, there is a discussion about binary stars, and how one star can come under so much electrical stress that fission occurs, and another star comes out of the first one. This relieves the electrical stress by creating more surface area. There are a lot of binary stars close by, the book says, and not just binaries but groups of 3 and 4 stars sharing a tight orbit. This is a huge revelation for a newcomer to take in, to put it mildly. Mnemeth1 has applied this process to brown dwarves. I am on my second reading of The EU, and trying to get up to speed. Are there any plasma experiments, any lab work, that have this binary result? Do the new heavenly bodies come out spherical? I think I am going to have to get Electric Sky!
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:29 pm

Also, I did mention liquid hydrogen being conductive. The reason I said that is because I read an article about hydrogen being the ideal superconductor, if it could be done. So I guess it would have to be at or near absolute zero?

But I should have said "metallic hydrogen" could be in the middle of the earth, because that is what they say Jupiter's core is made of. Here is an article about the creation of metalic H in a lab, and its properties.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

Also, liquid oxygen has to be pretty cold but at least it is paramagnetic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isd9IEnR4bw). I think that is a very good candidate for the middle of the earth. At least, I like it!
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:33 pm

~
Brigit wrote:
But I should have said "metallic hydrogen" could be in the middle of the earth, because that is what they say Jupiter's core is made of. Here is an article about the creation of metalic H in a lab, and its properties


Brigit,
I was near laughed off the forum some months ago when i posted that article, or a precursor, and deemed it entirely feasible.

As for growing planets, most the observable areas of our cosmos seem to be in a condition of expansion of one form or another, so why not the planets. I'm guessing there are more than one inflating factors.
Wish i knew more....

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:31 pm

seasmith,

Ya, they are either laughing, or sending someone over with a hook!

Well, surely these brain trusts do not subscribe to the iron/nickle dynamo idea, do they? You have a good night.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby keeha » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:33 pm

Total Science wrote:Keeha,

The mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth so that's quite impossible.

We could argue size, but volcanos are clear evidence that plumes are able to move through the mantle.

The Cretaceous Superplume
As pointed out by Sheridan (1991) , the concept of a 'pulsating' pattern of global geological processes (transgressions and regressions, mountain building, etc.) is not new, but the link between global cycles of geologic change and mantle processes was not made until the development of the mantle plume concept by Morgan (1971) (more info) . Morgan's plume theory was based on the emerging theory of global plate tectonics and the idea proposed by Wilson (1963) that hotspots in the shallow mantle underlay island/seamount chains in the deep ocean.

Robert Sheridan. Rutgers University. DetailsDuring the 1980's, a few publications noted the correlation between periods during which the Earth's magnetic field did not switch polarity (as it normally does on an irregular basis) and major episodes of geologic activity. The most developed of these was a paper by Sheridan (1987) , in which he hypothesized that these correlations could be explained by cyclic eruptions of plumes from the core-mantle boundary. Sheridan called this mechanism pulsation tectonics.

Image

Science Daily, Nov.08: Electronic Heat Trap Grips Deep Earth: Current Models Of Mantle Dynamics Challenged
The key to understanding Earth's evolution, including how our atmosphere gained oxygen and how volcanoes and earthquakes form, is to look deep, really deep, into the lower mantle—a region some 400 to 1,800 miles (660 to 2,900 kilometers) below the surface...

"Our results show that the conductivity of heat in this part of the lower Earth is driven by the amount of ferric iron in the mantle and the process of losing and gaining electrons," said co-author Viktor Struzhkin. "We'll need to use this new collection of information to reexamine how mantle plumes and other dynamic features of this remote realm are affected."

Steven Jacobsen, a co-author from Northwestern University, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Carnegie, and a member of the Carnegie DOE Alliance Center (CDAC), remarked, "The amount of light we are able to see through these mantle materials under extreme pressures and temperatures is telling us a lot about how effectively heat is transported out of the core and through the mantle."


Image (ignore the subduction zones of course)

Anyone else starting to see the earth as a small cold sun crusted over (and lower mantle and core influenced by similar processes)? Please PM me if anyone with a link if you know the site has a thread on this (not happy with this site's search feature).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity.
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby redeye » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:47 pm

Whenever I see models of plume dynamics it reminds me of plasma balls

Is the sphere in the centre of a plasma ball hollow?

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby ElecGeekMom » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:04 pm

Anyone else starting to see the earth as a small cold sun crusted over (and lower mantle and core influenced by similar processes)?


This page discusses how planets form from suns:

http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/fvit ... stems.html
ElecGeekMom
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:34 pm

"Myth No. 8. Planetary magnetic fields are generated by a hidden ‘dynamo’ in the core.

A rotating charged body will produce a dipolar magnetic field. Scientists discard this simple explanation because it is calculated for the Earth that the moving charge would have to constitute a current of a billion Amps, which implies a tremendously strong electric field at the Earth’s surface. But this simple electrostatic argument fails in a plasma environment. The electric field at the Earth’s surface reflects merely the difference in voltage between the Earth and its plasma sheath at the magnetospheric boundary with the solar wind. Like a bird sitting on a high-voltage transmission line, we are unaware of the electrification beneath our feet.

In Mercury’s case, its strong gravitational field for its size indicates a high level of internal electrical polarization. That means a high surface charge. So Mercury’s slowly rotating charge will produce a small magnetic field. Other effects will modify that field. For example, currents flow in the plasma above the surface and are induced in the surface of the planet. And there is remanent magnetism associated with old cosmic thunderbolt surface scars. The eccentric orbit of Mercury within the Sun’s electric field should ensure electric current is flowing to the planet throughout its year. The current flow is usually in the sense of a Faraday motor, via the poles and an equatorial plasma sheet."

--holoscience.com News and Views, Jan 14th 2008

Also, earthquakes in TPOD as underground lightning:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... hquake.htm
(I wish there was a discussion on the Tpod of that one!)
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:34 pm

On the question of Growing Earth Theory, think in the following terms, while making some broad assumptions. Let's think big then come back down to the possible growing Earth because I think they are linked.

- Galaxies spit out quasars that age and become normal galaxies.

We don't know if this is actually happening, but we can see what appears to be quasars being spit out to become normal galaxies, so let's go ahead and make that broad assumption that it is happening.

There is some mechanism that "creates matter" if you will. Maybe instead of talking about "creating matter" people would be more comfortable with the term Nucleosynthesis, where new atoms are built by fission or fusion, building all the different kinds of atoms we know.

In an earlier post someone mentioned Thornhill's article where he talks about the aether as being made of neutrinos. That the neutrino may be the lowest energy state of matter.

- The quasars may be the aether pumped up with energy in the heart of the galactic Z-pinch and spit out along the axis. (Whatever that means.)

- The quasars "aging" and becoming normal matter may be Nucleosynthesis in action taking neutrinos up to protons.

Let's go ahead and say that is possible. If it is possible to pump up the aether into enough mass--whatever "mass" means--to form a galaxy, then it is possible that Nucleosynthesis of aether into protons can occur in the hollow earth as well.

This does not contradict the concept that rocky planets like earth are formed like pearls in gas giants, then spit out. The growing of the planets from the inside by Nucleosynthesis is probably part of that process. There are many TPOD examples where they discuss fusion in the atmosphere turning oxygen into sulphur, or silicon into iron, so Nucleosynthesis appears to be happening all around us. Is it any stranger to think that Nucleosynthesis is occurring inside the Earth, causing it to expand--generating water, atmosphere, rocky crust--if you pump enough energy into the system. The kind of energy that is supposed to have happened during the Saturn Event.

- Look at the Saturn Event where Earth, Mars, and Venus were in orbit around Saturn.

Energy being pumped into the system possibly caused Venus, Mars, and the Earth to grow fast and disrupt the once stable system. Yes, Thornhill's concept that gravity is variable is probably right on, but that does not contradict that Nucleosynthesis on a massive scale happened as well.

What I see is:

- Venus grew the most of all three planets, which is why it is still hot and cooling down.

- Mars doubled in size going from the size of Earth's Moon to its current size.

- The Earth, being further along the chain increased by only ten percent to its current size.

Many of the numbers I used are based on what the different groups have described happening. With that much energy being pumped into the system, you're not going to just have thunderbolts carving planets, you are also going to be growing planets.

All this is a lot of hand waving so far, we do not know what is actually happening, we can just see the end result so far. I'm not ready to rush to judgement and discard any piece of this puzzle just yet. I'm willing to work on it for the next fifty years and see where we get. Yes, each piece of this puzzle is scary as hell just by itself, but I think they all do come together in some way that we have to understand.

_____________

Just to put things into perspective.

I stumbled onto all this stuff a year ago when James P. Hogan mentioned it in his book _Kicking the Sacred Cow_, and what it all comes down to so far is:

- You have one group saying that galaxies spit out quasars that then age and become new galaxies.

- You have another group that says the Sun is electric, not an exploding hydrogen bomb. That same group says that the universe is electric and electricity is what powers everything we see.

- You have another group that says that Venus, Mars, and the Earth were in orbit around Saturn and interaction with the Sun destabilized that system and it became our current Solar system.

- You have another group that says the Earth is a hollow geode that grew from something the size of Mars to its current size.

- You have another group that shows that the planets are hollow.

What is interesting to me, is that each group has part of the puzzle, and from my viewpoint, together, they almost have it all. It's not all there yet, there are still some missing pieces, possibly Thornhill's theory about the aether will tie them all together, but there is enough there to start me seeing that they all do come together, somehow. Don't ask me how, but they do seem to fit.

What's even more interesting to me, is that the only way we will be able to see the whole puzzle is when all these different groups get together and compare notes. But before that can happen, each group has to convince the other that they are not crazy.

I find this video helps me keep searching through the different groups so that I can try to see the whole puzzle.

As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
allynh
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:53 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:Also, earthquakes in TPOD as underground lightning:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... hquake.htm
(I wish there was a discussion on the Tpod of that one!)


I made a fun comment on that subject Sep 13th of last year. Look at my last post in the Hollow Moon thread, just for fun.

I would like to see the subject addressed, because I think that it is part of the larger picture.
allynh
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby StefanR » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:20 pm

allynh wrote:Many of the numbers I used are based on what the different groups have described happening. With that much energy being pumped into the system, you're not going to just have thunderbolts carving planets, you are also going to be growing planets.
.......
What is interesting to me, is that each group has part of the puzzle, and from my viewpoint, together, they almost have it all. It's not all there yet, there are still some missing pieces, possibly Thornhill's theory about the aether will tie them all together, but there is enough there to start me seeing that they all do come together, somehow. Don't ask me how, but they do seem to fit.

What's even more interesting to me, is that the only way we will be able to see the whole puzzle is when all these different groups get together and compare notes. But before that can happen, each group has to convince the other that they are not crazy.


Very nice, Allynh. I like your ideas about the subject. I can see some possibilities too with neutrinos. But maybe you and others would like to view this documentary, about exactly what you and this thread is talking about. The only problem may be that it is in German, but I honestly think that if you understand what is talked about in this thread one should be able to get the gist of what is said in the documentary. The ideas are the same. ;)

I hope it works.

Und sie bewegt sich doch!:
(documentary from french-german tv-channel)

LINK part 1
LINK part 2
LINK part 3
LINK part 4
LINK part 5
LINK part 6
LINK part 7
LINK part 8
LINK part 9
LINK part 10

(part 3 has to be readjusted but fixed ASAP)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:02 pm

That is a fun video series, I wish it was in english.

The thing that worries me is that if the Earth inflates too fast, will it pop. Yikes!

The examples from Neal Adams site use computer graphics rather than balloons. The german video showed how continents distort as they crumple to fit the larger sphere. Adams has a similar example.

He also shows his method of how he developed the computer model. He did what I want to do; take a standard map and run it through a graphics program. Once I get up to speed on Maya & Vue I'll see what I can do.

Notice the expanding Earth gif that Adams has on his web page. You can save it to your desk top by right-cliking on it. The gif will play in Quicktime so you can look at it anytime.

When you look at the gif play, notice that the continents move sideways, more than north to south. Notice that Australia moves south fast, real fast.

- If major growth occurred during the Saturn Event then the rock art in Australia should be different than the other continents at the same, current, Latitude.

Many TPODs mention how the rock art records the plasma shapes specific to the Latitude they were drawn at.

- The Australian rock art should show the plasma shape for a Latitude higher north than Australia is right now.

Call me crazy, but if that is true, if there is a real difference in the rock art, then there must be some way to compute how far north Australia was when the Saturn Event occurred and thus how much the Earth grew during that event.

As I mentioned in the Hollow Moon thread, there was a PBS Newshour and National Geographic report about the Green Sahara. Now, I may be crazy, but I think the reports show that the Earth grew between six thousand and ten thousand years ago, exactly when the Saturn Event occurred.

Scientists Find Stone Age Burial Ground From Once-green Sahara

Lost Tribes of the Green Sahara

and the text version of the article

The articles point out that there was a clear catastrophic event that changed the environment radically between six and ten thousand years ago. The fact that the population group ten thousand years ago was a foot taller than the six thousand year old group implies to me that the Earth grew, that the gravity increased by anywhere from ten to fifteen percent during the time when the Saturn Event occurred. Now, that may be me seeing patterns that do not exist, maybe, but what if it's right:

- If we can measure a real difference in the Australian rock art and it matches the apparent gravity difference suggested by the heights of the average population six and ten thousand years ago, then GET comes closer to being real, along with the Saturn Event to power that growth.

That's where the fun comes in, and everybody gets scared. I love it.

BTW, The Earth sculpture in the german video reminds me of a book cover I found on Amazon. I wrote the publisher for the cover art, but they don't know where it came from. If anybody comes across the original poster let me know. Thanks...

Shattered Consensus.jpg
Has anyone see the original cover art?


As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
allynh
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:50 pm

Those are fanastic links on the Sahara. That place is endlessly fascinating!

My news files on Tenere show that there are a lot of dinosaur bones there, laying on the ground...oh well.
http://www.supercroc.org/discovery_stories_03.htm

Also, I have an article somewhere on a human "burial site" in the Sahara. One archeologists commented "They were buried, but it is not a cemetary." (I should not say anything until I can find that link again!) In your link, that may not have been just a pose and an artifice in the way the bodies were laid, with the mother reaching out to her children, and the smaller one clinging to the older one.

On a National Geographic radio show, one archaeologist mentioned that the older group were not only taller, but they were also much stronger, judging by the striations of the bone made by muscles.

I am with you on the catasrophic event in the Sahara!
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:32 pm

The Richat Structure is strange.

http://geology.com/records/sahara-desert-map.shtml
(It's the 3rd marker over from the west coast.)

It reminds me a little of the Caloris Basin.

(I am still working on reading all the TPODs, so sorry if this is redundant :) )
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:15 am

It took me about two months, reading a few hours a day to get through all the Thunderbolts stuff online, and read the books, and watch the DVDs. All along the way there was shock after shock where I was hoping that things were just photoshopped, yet just about everything makes sense. I can't read a science book or watch NOVA without arguing with the "facts". I sit watching NOVA Science NOW and saying, "Noooo, Dr. Tyson, that's wrong!"

That's why once you've stumbled across EU/plasma cosmology, all the other things you've come across over the years click together and you find yourself searching for old articles and links and everything suddenly makes sense.

In one way, I hope we are just having fun finding patterns that aren't really there, because the implications of this stuff being "real" is scary as hell.

BTW, Check the Green Sahara link at the Project Exploration site and see if any of the links point to the "burial site" article you are looking for.
allynh
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest