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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

inscrutable siliceous activity

Unread post by moonkoon » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:19 pm

One way to classify rocks is by the amount of silica (sand, silicon dioxide, SiO2 in chemical lingo), they contain. In addition, it is generally the case that the rocks with a lower proportion of silica also tend to contain more magnesium and iron, whereas rocks with higher silica content tend to have a preponderance of lighter elements such as calcium, sodium, potassium or aluminium. It comes as something of a surprise therefore that the high silicate types sometimes occur in regions where the lower silicon types seem to be the only obvious source of the lighter (in both density and colour) high silicate rocks. This puzzling juxtaposition even has it's own name, it is called the "andesite problem". This seemingly out of place andesite, and its analogue, diorite, have a silicate content that is midway between basalt (lower) and granite (higher).

Below is a graphical presentation showing how silica in the various rock types ranges from 40 to 75 percent. It also shows how viscosity, colour and melting point vary along with the silica. The relationship between silica and the lighter elements is also apparent.



It's not just some academic issue that has little relevance to people's lives, just the opposite in fact, for andesite is both a blessing and a curse in that andesite volcanoes are the most dangerous to life and limb as they tend to erupt explosively. This is mainly due to the differing viscosities of the high and low silicate rocks, high silicate andesite magmas are thick and flow slowly while the lower silicate basalts tend to flow freely. This translates to higher pressure eruptions for andesite, is harder for any gases present to escape so the pressure can reach higher levels. And on the blessing side, andesite hosts many of the elements, copper for example, that enable much of the modern technology that we currently enjoy. So given its far reaching effects it is natural that we would be curious about their origins and whatnot.

The question of their origin has been the source of much discussion and a number of explanations have been suggested. Researchers generally try to reconcile the relative amounts of certain trace elements or minerals, notably zircon, zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4, and the oxide of phosphorus, P2O5, contained in the mineral apatite), in the proposed precursors with the amounts present in the andesites.

They include:
- A process known as crystal fractionation or differentation of some combination of hot mantle rock or submerged crust, where the higher melting point minerals crystallize first leaving a solution that is enriched in the lower melting point minerals. This liquid plus crystal mush then separates with the heavier mineral crystals tending to sink, leaving the still liquid high silica, lower melting point minerals to occupy the upper regions of the melt. The liquid portion is then free to move towards the surface where it solidifies to create andesite islands in a sea of basalt, ...literally. The sea of basalt is the ocean crust and the andesite islands are the intra-ocean island arcs that occur where two separate parts of the ocean crust meet with one part of the crust overriding the other or to put it another way with one section sinking beneath the other.

-Mixing of ocean floor sediments with the down going basaltic ocean crust or overlying mantle wedge rocks (peridote) to produce a hybrid melt which then becomes the source of the andesite. This method would require the relatively high zircon content of sediments to be reflected in the andesite that is produced from the resulting mixture. however this is generally not observed (this link also outlines shortcomings with other models mentioned below).

-Mixing ocean crust basalt with high silica "end members" such as dacite or rhyolite. Again there are problems with actual zircon and phosporus values vs those expected from the model.

-Various types of crust mantle mixing. Again the numbers don't add up.

None of the proposed mechanisms or combinations thereof are all that convincing. All the mixing explanations also suffer from the differing liquidus and solidus temperatures of high and low silica melts as the higher temperature low silicate melts are apt to solidify on contact with the lower silicate melts. It perhaps suggests the presence of an active energy source to maintain the liquid nature of the components. Interestingly the radio isotope signature of the andesites and continental crust are similar. But again there are major inconsistencies.

... Because the relatively enriched signature of radiogenic isotope composition is generally comparable between andesites and their emplaced continental crust, the crustal contamination at the crust-mantle transition zone is often envisaged in the hypotheses for andesite petrogenesis.

However, these hypotheses are not compatible with quantitative constraints from the mass balance of major elements, trace elements and their pertinent radiogenic isotopes in andesites.

Some energy source other than compression/convection and disseminated isotopic activity may be able to provide a more compelling narrative about this important phenomena.

Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm


Unread post by moonkoon » Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:19 am

for, ... apt to solidify on contact with the lower silicate melts.
read, ... apt to solidify on contact with the higher silicate melts.

Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by hlg » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:19 am

from allynh's post:
and on further analyses they found microscopic spherules interpreted to have been formed by melting due to the extremely high temperatures associated with impact.
i wonder how microscopic spherules can be formed on impact...

must be some special kind of the pancake effect ;-)

User avatar
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:05 am

Remember how electric sparking in lab fuse oxygen atoms and produce ozone, could the planets be making new matter at the fault lines by electrically fusing hydrogen and other atoms/compounds or fusing free protons, free neutrons and free electrons with electricity deep inside the earth?

Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by hlg » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:26 am


in your earlier posts in this threat you were posting the growing earth videos and that the volume of the earth would have had to grow 4 times in size, to make the growing theory fit, if i remember that right.

i am quite sure that neal adams, whos videos i saw first years ago about that topic, show the real process...

the inflation of the earth and the generation of matter in a non relativistic real 3d universe must be both governed by the magnetic and electric forces...

the concept of big bang and fusion only in suns with ever repeating explosions and reassembling by gravity seems so incredible unprobably to me...

since entropy should increase...

the opposite seems to be the case. matter seems to create in some way the conditions to gather or create ever more matter of the like...

as if matter itself seems to be a fine tuned receiver, creating standing waves powered by the aether. these standing waves seem to manifest in 3d real world/universe as photons, electrons and so on...

the double layers wal thornhill and don scott have described seem to exist on every scale, inside atoms, inside molecules, inside bodies of all kind, living or dead...

some sort of that boundary seems to exist deep below earths surface...

perhaps rotation plays a big role...

think about the moon, the rings of saturn etc...

if we could start rotation of the moon somehow, perhaps we could see how the moon develops and gets his oceans and hot core too...

Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by tholden » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:15 pm

Are the planets growing?
My version of the answer is still no. You don't have 65 milllion years to play with on that one. We now have soft tissue from dinosaur remains and radiocarbon dates for that tissue and the dates so far fall in a range of 20,000 - 40,000 years, and petroglyphs indicate dinosaurs on the Earth more recently than that. If the planet had been growing during the age of man building cities and large structures as would appear to have to be the case, no structure larger than a couple of stone blocks on top of one another would still be standing, the Earth would have expanded under the base rows of stones and they would have all collapsed. You certainly would not see those tight fits that you see in pyramid blocks and other structures.

The ancient attenuation of gravity was much more likely brought about by the ancient surface charge affecting gravity at a basic level as Ralph Sansbury's studies suggest.

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:32 am

tholden wrote:If the planet had been growing during the age of man building cities and large structures as would appear to have to be the case, no structure larger than a couple of stone blocks on top of one another would still be standing, the Earth would have expanded under the base rows of stones and they would have all collapsed. You certainly would not see those tight fits that you see in pyramid blocks and other structures.
Wow. Even after pointing out the fundamental issue with this previously you're still pushing this nonsense. I hate to shout but;


Every proponent of EE acknowledges this. It's what the theory is built upon, yet you still insist on this ridiculous strawman fallacy.

Not sure anyone should take anything you say seriously while you continue to spout this garbage.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:10 am


On page 54 to 58 of your book, Dinosaurs, Gravity, and Changing Scientific Paradigms, you show a series of pictures using a visual aid of basketball and cantaloupe to show how an egg shaped Earth would split to form Pangea. Your process requires a Bear to help make it happen. This video shows the same process, but on a Growing Earth, without the Bear helping out. HA!

Pangea Theory Proven Wrong!

Up thread I gave a similar example, only with grapefruit/orange/tangerine continents with deep cantaloupe oceans.

Both the video and my grapefruit/orange/tangerine continents with deep cantaloupe oceans describe the process better. They show rafts of continents floating on the Growing Earth. At no time would you have growth occurring beneath the foundations of a building. Everything is floating on ever thickening rafts.

This shows the Earth Growing with just the continents visible. Watch it over and over. Terrifying!

Expanding Earth Theory

This video shows how the oceans would look on a constant size Earth during Pangea. You have to include how the oceans would act in any theory you come up with.

Neal Adams - Science: 10 - Proof Positive! Earth Grows!

This is the link to the full Maxlow lecture mentioned on page 16 of this thread. What's interesting, is that was a conference where Wal Thornhill made a presentation as well.

The Expanding Earth, Why is Our Planet Getting Bigger? [FULL VIDEO]

Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by johnm33 » Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:20 pm

There are images in this link which help to illustrate my thoughts.
First looking at barred galaxies and the model of the milky way it seems the galaxies rotate around an axis. Where this axis crosses the galactic plane there's some sort of pinch or energetic 'crisis' which forces two opposite streams/bars of plasma[?] to emerge both orthogonal to the axis, these in turn appear to be spinning, just in opposite directions to one another, like nuts on studding moving away from each other. Once again a pinch point or energy crisis is reached and here plasma is once again shot out orthogonally to the axis of rotation, some of these plasma bodies immediately join the spiral arms others appear to be captured by the forces surrounding the bars perhaps to emerge again as minor arms where they meet the discharging end of the opposite bar. So I think this is the mechanism for creating first generation stars.
Those stars which join the spiral arms rapidly align themselves with their arm as they spring into electrical life, and that alignment entrains the star within the arm. From here the star slowly moves away from galaxy central comparable to the emission of ions from the sun, ballerina skirt fashion. ... rent_sheet There's no orbital speed imparted though there may be some slow acceleration due to electric/magnetic field effects within the arm as the arm evolves. Being rather concentrated the stars may evolve quite rapidly in the electrical sense, slowly forming denser cores and emitting electrons/ions into the spiral arms field, I'm thinking that the planets begin their lives as the cores of stars and that the iron cored sun spliced with Charles Chandlers electron depletion model explains it best. So i'm suggesting that the core of the planets are formed of an exotic form of iron or an alloy of it that crystallized under the temperatures and pressures at the heart of stars, they would be surrounded by heavy metal ores which may have formed within them due to radiative electromagnetic or pressure shocks and been squeezed out of the crystal, and around them a mixture of lighter elements these too would be formed into superconcentrated compounds.
I'm guessing it would be rare for stars within the same arm to meet with sufficient force to create an inertial shock that would cause the core to be ripped out but I suspect that occasionally stars from the 'wrong' arm may wander across and being of opposite charge [like the heliospheric current sheet] create enough of a shock to perform the deed, but even more likely to create a sufficient shock is a close encounter with a star from a satellit galaxy, and the sag. satellite galaxy passes through the milky way in our vicinity, and if i'm correct about there being no orbit then it has been passing through for an extraordinarily long time.
Once a core has been ripped from a star I believe it has to be quickly accelerated into a near sun/star orbit, this being the only chance it has for the exotic chemical composition of it's core not to begin a chain reaction of expansive exothermic reactions, say something like 35-50kmps, If the cores were at 6-8,000 deg. then that acceleration would freeze all the catalytic heavy metals and also set many of the lighter elements around them. If spin was rapidly induced this would add to the effect. Those cores/planets not captured would explode on their way out of any system that 'birthed' them leaving a debris field some way out. Many of the resultant iron fragments would find themselves still depleted of electrons.
Some maybe most of the now coreless stars will be captured and continue as gas giants, so maybe 'we've' had 4 or more such encounters. It may also be that there is a continuum of core evolution within these gas giants and that these in turn can be lost as there 'parents' are displaced to ever more remote orbits.
Due to Earth moving to a wider/slower orbit sufficient heat was generated [-5km.p.s.] to boil up some of the heavy metals and kick start the exothermic cascade that expands the exotic minerals formed within the star we came from the question is will it stop? The Planets time line is probably an order of magnitude less than uniformitaians believe, perhaps the cascade of reactions began as little as 70,000 years ago?
Another maybe, the iron core would be formed under intense pressures and be completely depleted of electrons, so perhaps it formed in such a way as to exclude electrons altogether so although electrons are attracted to the core some sort of tension prevents them penetrating the iron. So the electrons approach the but are repelled by the torsion field generated by the iron ions and form a field of there own in the heavy metals surrounding the core being expelled near the equatorial plane, they aren't even electrons they're a field of standing waves in a holding pattern.
The torsion field of the now shrunken core has not only shrunk as a consequence it has also disappeared below the surface and no longer repels anything containing electrons.
Another line is that if Venus 'usurped' our inner orbit, and is still settling in what happens when it does, does it align it's rotation with the solar system, develop it's own magnetic field, create such field tension that our orbits switch?

Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Jetson63 » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:23 pm

Planets are growing.

The important part is, in 27 1/2 years, the sun is going to go nova and fry the earth.


Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue May 21, 2019 2:19 pm

Yellowstone, the gift that keeps on giving. HA!

Expert Warns Yellowstone Eruption Could Kill Five Billion People ... on-people/
Paul Seaburn May 19, 2019
When does a disaster go from ‘natural’ to ‘the mother of all’ disasters’? When it’s the next eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. That’s according to a leading volcano expert from Poland who wants the United States to start thinking ‘when’ not ‘if’ and developing an evacuation plan for an eruption that he predicts could kill five billion people.

“The only thing you can do is evacuate people to another continent.”

In a recent interview with Poland’s WP Media, Dr. Jerzy Żaba, professor of geological sciences and head of the Department of General Geology at the University of Silesia in Katowice, explains why a Yellowstone “Superwulk” eruption would be far more destructive and deadly to life on Earth than most other experts are willing to consider. He starts by comparing it to a recent supervolcano event — the Toba supereruption about 75,000 years ago in Sumatra, Indonesia, which was one of the largest known eruptions.

“As a result of the Toby eruption in Sumatra, according to various estimates, 70 to 90 percent died. the then human population on our planet. More optimistic researchers believe that the outbreak was survived by tens of thousands of people, moderately optimistic that they survived 15,000, and the least – from three to five thousand. The population of a small village survived all over the world!” (Google translation)

Up to 90 percent of the Earth’s albeit small population at that time may have died. If you’re into odds, Żaba points out that there have been 42 similar supervolcano eruptions — on average once in less than a million years. So, as far as Yellowstone is concerned, we’re good for at least a few hundred-thousand years, right?

“Yellowstone is a powerful superwulkan whose explosions took place, to our knowledge, three times. The first took place over two million years ago, the second million 300,000. years ago, and the third, about which we know the most, took place 640 thousand. years ago.”

Żaba says volcanoes are erupting in different locations than in the past (Poland has one that was active 800,000 years ago) and geologists have learned that nearby volcanoes are often linked and can cascade into multiple eruption events. However, none have the destructive potential – both on the ground and in the air – of Yellowstone.

“It would destroy most of the United States. Discarded materials would cover everything with a meter layer within a radius of 500 km. And due to the emission of a huge amount of dust, gases or sulfur oxide to the atmosphere, there would be a temporary cooling of the climate. Sulfur oxide would create a thin veil of sulfuric acid around the planet reflecting sunlight. He would persist for many years. It is estimated that due to climate change about five billion people would starve to death.”

Żaba doesn’t think programs like NASA’s plan to drill a hole and cool Yellowstone’s magma will work due to the sheer size and volume of the magma tank. Besides, it’s not the lava that will kill us – it’s the dust and debris that will be thrown into the atmosphere. Żaba says the only way to escape falling chunks of rock and debris is to evacuate, but the space for holding the millions of people who need to move in a short period of time will require another continent and a monumental effort. And, once they get to their new home, they’ll have to deal with the death of all flora and fauna that will result in Żaba’s prediction that five billion people would starve to death.

Is there any good news, Dr. Żaba?

“There are forces over which people have no influence and have to observe with incredible humility.”

Humility? We’re doomed!

Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by rickard » Wed May 29, 2019 8:47 am

According to the danish writer Martinus stars and planets are created through "materialization" that start with invisible electric energies that gradually concentrates in form of gloving gas masses that with time form suns and planets, this glowing masses of gas seems to be an other word for plasma, and the described process is still visible in the sun.
I think that since the earth has developed from the same "plasma field" as the sun, it is highly likely that the same process, that is still going on in the sun, is also still active in the center of the earth, and new matter is still being materialized there, causing the expansion of the earth.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed May 29, 2019 10:48 am

Oh, that is so fun.

I never heard of Martinus before, never stumbled across his stuff. The symbols that he developed are eerily familiar, I've developed similar, but be that as it may. I can use that. HA!


Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by johnm33 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:52 am

I was looking at this image, ... lscale.jpg when it occured to me that expansion from mid ocean ridges is wrong, what's actually happening is that the so called subduction zones are where the action is. Intrusions of near core material brought to the lithosphere by boiling ore bodies rising through the mantle have catalysed reactions with whatever minerals they encountered on the way and these have expanded and probably still do. Thus the sea floor dating should be reversed the ridges are where the process started, it continues beneath the Andes for instance accounting for the uplift there, so where the arrows point down for subduction they should be reversed. ... ion-en.svg
It's kind of interesting to look for the features the 'scratches' in the ocean floor 'point' back to.

Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by ja7tdo » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:21 pm


Earth is growing? yes, I agree.

But do you think about water? also atmosphere.
If the earth expands, the seabed will expand and the sea water will run out.
It is necessary for the atmosphere to expand as well.
In order to explain the expansion of the earth, we have to solve many problems.

Earth expands during Ice Age ... ng-ice-age


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests