Are the planets growing?

[Florian]

The Earth is a hollow geode where most of the transmuted matter is generated in the hollow core. The Earth is probably filled with liquid hydrogen, which is why Earth has atmosphere and is wet.

The earth can't be hollow, because seismic waves prove that the mantle is solid down to 2890 km. Then the outer core is liquid between 2890-5150 km and the inner core is solid again between 5150-6360 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth ... _paths.gif

However, there is probably a lot of hydrogen in the mantle and may be the outer core.

[allynh]

Here I come to make another drive-by post between disaster movies.

The earth can't be hollow, because seismic waves prove that the mantle is solid down to 2890 km. Then the outer core is liquid between 2890-5150 km and the inner core is solid again between 5150-6360 km.

We actually can't see the core. No earthquake data gets through that part. They just assume an iron core. Check out the following sites for different viewpoints about what's inside the core.

Expanding Earth Knowledge Company
http://eearthk.com/index.html

The Hollow Earth Theory
http://www.hollowearththeory.com/

Hollow Planets Theory
http://www.hollowplanets.com/

Now I'm off to watch _10.5_ and _10.5 Apocalypse_, then watch the ABC miniseries _Impact_ again. Zooommmm.

[StefanR]

I would be very interested where I could find the information about that, could you provide links perhaps?

Here is a review about dinosaur biomechanics written by Alexander:

http://nachon.free.fr/2006-Alexander-Re ... hanics.pdf

Problems related to large size bodies are discussed.

Thank you Florian. But I'm not really sure if agree that this article is very clear in it's discussion of problems related to size.
I did see just one tiny mention about airsacs, but I do not think the article does justice too that subject.
If you wish you can have at a few links with some information on that subject
with concerning sauropods
pneumaticity
and a longer discussion about
Rigorous study of size limits for flying creatures

I said back then

It's a pity indeed that the thread in the old forum is gone and this above is a little that remains. From what I got from that discussion back then was that although maybe discussing a changing gravity or a growing earth might not be wrong. Trying to use the size of animals or plants as an argument is not such a good way around it.

And for me personally that still holds, what do you think ?

By the way as a small sidenote, this one is for GreyCloud

Sauropods were corn-on-the-cob, not shish kebabs
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/s ... sh-kebabs/
Sauropods were tacos, not corn dogs
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/s ... corn-dogs/


Below is a post with links to the documentary that is mentioned in the thread-titel
For neutrinos start at link six, I believe
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 271#p16271

I personally think any dust or plasma is going to do the trick of supplying substance, but neutrinos from the sun and stars might be able perhaps in a certain interaction, it is at least present, so it is said, in abundance, it on the one hand has a function in matter and on the other hand there is a great penetrability of matter, the come from the sun, and the stars in various levels of energy, and that the different spheres of stars function as a certain step-down transformer

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Stefan,
Thanks for side-tracking me with the dino links, as I was just reading the Intro to Taylor's Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries (itself a side-track).
Junk food and junk science? I would have preferred a comparison with a giraffe rather than the ostrich. I'm thinking of blood-pressure and safety-valves there. Interesting and well presented blogs though, I grant them that.
[I also noted the part about the guy named Holland winning the debate in 1910. I suppose you will be claiming that one too?]

As far as the expanding Earth business goes, I don't see the Earth as being different from anything else. It is born; it grows; it matures and reproduces; it declines and dies.

[StefanR]

I personally think any dust or plasma is not going to do the trick of supplying substance, but neutrinos from the sun and stars might

Slight correction

Hi Stefan,
Thanks for side-tracking me with the dino links, as I was just reading the Intro to Taylor's Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries (itself a side-track).
Junk food and junk science? I would have preferred a comparison with a giraffe rather than the ostrich. I'm thinking of blood-pressure and safety-valves there. Interesting and well presented blogs though, I grant them that.
[I also noted the part about the guy named Holland winning the debate in 1910. I suppose you will be claiming that one too?]

As far as the expanding Earth business goes, I don't see the Earth as being different from anything else. It is born; it grows; it matures and reproduces; it declines and dies.

Just thought you might like the analogy, after the tectonic bananas and magnetic slinkies
The site is most certainly not junk science, if you wish to have giraffes, no problemo
Necks lie
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/necks-lie/
Taylor, Wedel and Naish (2009) on neck posture
http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv ... k-posture/
What heads tell us about necks, redux
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/w ... cks-redux/
(check out the eliphant/ostrich gif )
Necks, the big picture: because there are other animals besides sauropods
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/n ... sauropods/
Neck posture, yet again: T. rex’s neck is pathetic
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/n ... -pathetic/

As for Taylor, I happened to have that opened too, also pertaining to structure and function

[Florian]

We actually can't see the core.

Oh yes we do. P-wave (compression wave) go through the core. we can even detect an anisotropy of the core. See for example Belonoshko et al "Elastic Anisotropy of Earth's Inner Core" (2008) Science vol 310 p797.

[Florian]

Thank you Florian. But I'm not really sure if agree that this article is very clear in it's discussion of problems related to size.
I did see just one tiny mention about airsacs, but I do not think the article does justice too that subject.
If you wish you can have at a few links with some information on that subject
with concerning sauropods
pneumaticity
and a longer discussion about
Rigorous study of size limits for flying creatures

Thank for the links. Very interesting discussions. These issues are easily solved by the "planetary growth" model that is also largely supported by geological and biogeographical evidences.

[mcalevy]

Or what if a deluge occurred 250 million years ago?

About 90% of the indigenous peoples in the world have a deluge in the history of their people. We know that there was more than one.

Non-scientific sources tell us that the carbon dating system we use is unreliable because water in the atmosphere surrounding the earth changed the radiation reaching the earth and that the decay we see in radioactive materials was at a different rate at that time.

Don't forget that dinosaur and human footprints have been found together.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Just one more anomaly discarded by academic science.

And Churchward presented evidence that the mountains of the earth are more recent creations than current theory holds. I believe this was in volume #5. He was a little strange, but some of his writings were derived from naacal texts in India that he translated. He said that there was no atomic force, and I would presume that refuting the atomic force as it was defined in his time is kind of what this website is all about.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arque ... ward01.htm

What if the Earth IS ONLY 250 mil years old?
We instantly do away with the main stumbling block and Carey's theory is not as radical or flawed as first assumed.
Thornhill has proposed that mass can change with a 'cosmological trigger'. It may not be the one Carey envisaged but his insistence on an EXTERNAL driver was inherently correct.[/quote]

[mcalevy]

What if in our movement around the galaxy we move through the space where our solar system was originally formed and we simply pick up some more materials which increases the size of everything in the solar system. And maybe some new genetic material as well?

[calebeaton]

I definitely come at this as a lay person...electron bombardment of earth is way beyond me. I was exposed to Neal Adam's stuff ( http://www.continuitystudios.net/morescience.html ) a year ago and I've always felt that the electric universe model accommodates the expanding earth theory very well. EU speaks about planets being so close that Mars (for example) filled the sky and there was static discharge between the two planets (and all witnessed by human ancestors).

Wouldn't the change in mass/size be easily explained by changes in distances between planets/sun/electrical charge, the growing size of the solar system and, ultimately, ever-expanding universe?

Thinking longer term, throw in the traditions about the universe "breathing." Perhaps we have been in a cycle of expansion. What if the universe isn't ever-expanding? What if we go into a contraction cycle? Though it's doubtful any micro-electric experiments could demo that, precisely because everything expands while the universe is in expanding mode.

Perhaps that's off point. What I really hope that someone will address is the effect of an expanding electrical solar system on the mass/size of earth. And perhaps the necessity of expanding earth/planets to accommodate adjustments in electric charge as distance between planets grows.

I'm thinking in terms of electrical charge dictating the physics rocks. Not the other way around.

[calebeaton]

There are some issues with the Neal Adams videos on the site above.
Here a link to lots of the same videos on YouTube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

[Florian]

There are some issues with the Neal Adams videos on the site above.
Here a link to lots of the same videos on YouTube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

Yes, Neal Adams are mostly bogus, despite the big picture is correct.
I've been advocating the growing planetary theory for sometimes.

See my comments of these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGrlDF6PjgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oBAbD8b ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0

[Aardwolf]

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt the the earth must be expanding. The observational evidence supports this; the main stumbling block is where does the extra mass come from. However, most of the proponents of this problem are unaware or deliberately ignorant of the possibilities of the EU. IMO mass isn't created, it's converted from the energy of the sun. Exactly how this is done I am unsure but there is certainly enough energy produced by the sun over millions of years to convert into the required amount of mass.

[Anaconda]

Hi florian:

florian wrote:
Yes, Neal Adams are mostly bogus, despite the big picture is correct.

I read some of your more recent comments and I agree that "upduction" seems likely. How are Neal Adams' videos bogus? Not that I'm sticking up for them, rather, since you've studied EE alot, I'm interested in where the videos go wrong. Also, I'm curious about whether you subscribe to transmutation of elements (perhaps, you have already stated that and I forgot). Gold seems to be found either in mountainous areas within the rock in veins or in the river valleys below them, suggesting the gold came out of the moutains. Mountains, orogenic "upduction", seem to generate a lot of pressure, likely temperature, and possibly electrical energy. florian, in your view how do heavy elements, gold, lead, and platinum, and so on, get into the shallow crust if these metals are "star dust"? Wouldn't heavy metals have a strong tendency to stay in the core because of their specific gravity?

Reading your comments, it's clear you have a very developed theory, so I'm just trying to "pick your brain", hope that's okay

[Florian]

I think it's beyond reasonable doubt the the earth must be expanding. The observational evidence supports this; the main stumbling block is where does the extra mass come from. However, most of the proponents of this problem are unaware or deliberately ignorant of the possibilities of the EU. IMO mass isn't created, it's converted from the energy of the sun. Exactly how this is done I am unsure but there is certainly enough energy produced by the sun over millions of years to convert into the required amount of mass.

I share the very same view. The energy likely comes from the sun but what is its form, and how is it converted?
The second issue was about the transmutation of simple elements into heavier one. And here again the Sun comes into play. The sun send us leptonic magnetic monopoles that interact weakly and promote nuclear transmutations. And there are published theorical support and experimental evidences for this:

G. Lochak (2007) The equation of a Light Leptonic Magnetic Monopole and its Experimental Aspects. Z. Naturforsch. 62a, 231-246
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.2752v1