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 dahlenaz » Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:08 pm

I have one question about Nickc's initial reply. Where in the video is there a mention of the creation of matter? All it says is that the earth grew in size not that it grew in matter. That may have been implied and if so where?

I think the question should actually be, 'Did' the planet grew to a different size at some point in its history?

Is there a necessity for the gain of matter as an object to grows in size? I have some other questions, but first some experiments.

I'm setting up an experiment now to demonstrate an idea that this discussion might want to run with, as an alternate to its current direction. The new direction being; what happens to matter under extreme pressure, assumed 'by me' to exist at the heart of a planetary incubators under the influence of electrical pinch-type effects; next would be what happens as a planetary body emerges into the vacuum of space; next, how long does it take for the structural integrity of the bodies crust to fail under the absence of extreme pressure; and lastly, what happens to the material inside that body as it is released suddenly into a lower pressured environment.

I think of a couple of examples of the effects of pressure changes. The first is from an ocean fishing trip where we caught bottom fish. By the time they were brought to the surface their eyes had bulged out of their sockets. I was told, hopefully correctly, this was because of the pressure change. The next example is the old marshmellow in a vacuum chamber example. Surface area expands as the pressure decreases. So my experiment will involve solid crusts formed on a marshmellow then placed in my trusty-dusty vacuum chamber. The video, if successful, will be placed on youtube under username 'dahlenaz07'. Now we wait for the chocolate to dry.
d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:41 pm

So far in this experiment i can show expansion with adding any mass. As far as producing a rupture caused by a vacuum, this may take something more than a hand pump. I wonder if the space agency would consider such an experiment as i'm proposing to see the effects on something like an egg or a grape or something like a hot potato or a hard boiled egg. My thoughts are toward something that has an internal pressure and a shell that is capable of rupture and then expose it to a sudden vacuum. I heard about a seedpot or piece of fruit that had such an internal pressure that could cause injury to someone who is nearby when rupture occurs. I can't remember what that natural object was though.
Any suggestions would be helpful. d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:45 pm

rennureof,
First, let me state that I have no agenda or position with aether theory or expanding Earth. My reason for being on these forums is an interest in the EU and planetary catastrophism. My participation on this thread has come about because I find the ExpEarth theory intriguing, yet I have questions. As I read your posts, it seemed to me that you were espousing creation ex nihilo in the core of planets and stars and saying that this was compatible with EU theory, I took exception to that because it is clear (from the quotes I posted from the holoscience site) that the inviolability of matter is an EU tenet. I also asked that if I was off base to correct me.

rennureof wrote:
nick c wrote:"I don't want to get into any debates on the aether or such..."

"What is a 'swirl of aether particles' made of? Is it matter or not?
It seems that you are just using some fancy jargon in an attempt to slip 'creation ex nihilo' in the back door of EU theory
Again, correct me if I am off base here, I am not a physicist."

"If the Expanding Earth theory can be accomodated with out invoking some exotic mechanism for matter creation, that could be interesting reading. Some have suggested this, can anyone elaborate? If so, I have even more questions "



It could be pointed out to nick c that his statements are completely without merit but then that would require that he read what has been posted and make a slight attempt to understand it.

You are accusing me of making statements without merit, rather I asked questions...and they were not answered. The only statement I made was that 'something from nothing' is incongruent with my understanding of EU. You are free to show me where "my understanding" is wrong. And yes, I have read all the posts on this thread, and it sounds to me like there is something created from nothing at the core of the Earth, I asked that if this is not the case then could someone explain what is being proposed? Is that unreasonable? You have written something about "swirling aether particles," my question is valid, what is this? My question was simple, is this nothing (not matter) becoming something (matter)? If these aether particles are matter and changing into another form of matter then there is no creation ex nihilo. I did not get an answer, from you or anyone else. I was looking for something general and simple like...
1. "no there is no creation per se, it is just one form of matter converting to another form" or "being accreted by the Earth"
-or
2. "yes, there is a mechanism by which something can come from nothing and here is a summary of how that process works..."
-or
3. "creation is not an issue, the planets expand without any increase in matter"
-or
4. some other explanation that I have not considered

Is that an unreasonable line of inquiry?



rennureof wrote:However, he makes it very clear that he has no wish to understand the 'fancy jargon' of Lord Kelvin, Nikola Tesla, Sir Oliver Lodge, etc. because apparently in his opinion nothing they had to say on the subject is worth knowing, and furthermore he doesn't want to hear anymore about it. This attitude seems more suited to Wikipedia than the Thunderbolts

This is an [url2=http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/attack_person.htm]ad hom attack[/url2], via blatant [url2=http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm]appeals to ridicule [/url2]and to [url2=http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm]authority[/url2], and is totally unnecessary. I never mentioned any of those names, nor did I state an "opinion" on whether anything they had to say was worth knowing. Show where I wrote anything against any of these men! (And incidentally, they put their pants on one leg at a time, I am sure that each of them were wrong about some things.) The irony is that I am not necessarily arguing against Exp Earth! only asking questions. My only reservation was that I could not accept creation ex nihilo. If Lord Kelvin, et al. advocated that, then I disagree with them on that particular issue!

rennureof wrote:"Thus the relationship between mass, gravity, and electrical energy, and why matter creation would occur more often inside gravitationally dense bodies. Far from being a case of creation ex-nihilo, creation actually would then be occurring exactly where the aether particles and energy are the densest."
highlight added

Now here is the problem. You are not being clear! You use the phrase "matter creation would occur more often inside gravitationally dense bodies" and then you say this is not creation ex nihilo! What is it? It is either matter creation or it isn't. Was there nothing and then something? If it is not "matter creation" why do you use that phrase?


nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby bboyer » Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:51 pm

Before this goes any further, a friendly reminder:

Personal or ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated, under any circumstances. If you disagree with something which has been posted, address the post, not the poster.


Always treat fellow users, moderators and site administrators with respect. Users come here to discuss matters of common interest in an environment of friendliness and freedom from abuse.


Rules & Guidelines
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:25 am

hello dahlenaz,

dahlenaz wrote:I have one question about Nickc's initial reply. Where in the video is there a mention of the creation of matter? All it says is that the earth grew in size not that it grew in matter. That may have been implied and if so where?

I did not get that from the video, although I thought that it was implied. My reason for going in that direction is that I had remembered that S. Warren Carey, the originator of the ExpEarth theory, proposed that matter was being 'created,' I assumed, in the core of the Earth.
Perhaps the most radical suggestion is Carey's "null universe" in which it is envisioned that matter is continuously created (Carey 1983b; Carey 1988, pp. 338-342).
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm

That Carey did not subscribe to the inviolability of matter is obvious from his own words:
From earliest times philosophers have balked at creation from nothing
[snip]
In my model, a particle is created paired with energy, and once created the mass of a particle remains constant until it is annihilated along with its energy counterpart.
[snip]
Whereas matter cannot be created from nothing, matter with its' cognate energy can be mutually created from nothing or mutually cancelled to zero.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... Cosmic.htm

I am perplexed by the above quote, Carey states matter cannot be created from nothing, and then describes the situation whereby that could indeed occur.
And also from another chapter of his book:
If this had occurred at constant mass, the surface gravity would have been four times greater in the Permian, which was patently not true.
Therefore I concluded that, either the expansion was false or the mass of the Earth had also increased greatly.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... RTHEXP.htm


Also, concerning the dinosaur/pterosaur weight problem, it has been argued that this was explained because of diminished gravity due to a smaller Earth.
Stephen Hurrell in “Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth,” [1994, One-off Publishing, Great Britain] makes a strong case that the immense size of the animal, insect and plant species during those periods was due to the lesser gravity of a much smaller Earth, which is supported by the evidence of growth and expansion of the planet presented here.
http://www.expanding-earth.org/
Again, this would imply that the Earth acquired additional matter as it expanded. Perhaps one could argue that there was a change in mass but not matter, a la Thornhill's proposition that mass is a variable property of matter, but I don't believe Carey or any expanding Earth proponents took that position. The Earth is constantly accreting meteors, cosmic dust, etc however I don't see how this could account for the evidence presented, as these things would be accumulating on the surface, not seperating the continents; and don't appear to amount to anywhere near the quantity of matter necessary. For the Earth to expand, in the manner shown in the video, the expansion must (seems to me, am I wrong in this?) come from the interior. I'm open to alternatives.

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:11 am

For the Earth to expand, in the manner shown in the video, the expansion must (seems to me, am I wrong in this?) come from the interior. I'm open to alternatives.

nick c


May i suggest this alternative perspective, that, 'if' expansion occured, it began with crustal failure which allowed the release of confining pressures upon the interior contents. We are told that the earth was broken up and this should be a starting point in a 'what would happen next' scenario. The question i'm asking is, would the release of confining pressures be all that would be required to allow deformation and a resizing as material reacts to a change in properties involved in its confinement? If so then there would be no need for the addition of matter to accomplish the change in size. The expansion need not "come from" (be caused by?) anything added, it would a consequence of
the absence of confinement. The cause of the crustal rupture seems more important than the outcome.
d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Osmosis » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:24 am

dalenaz---Would the expansion of the crust eventually lead to bursting? The earth's crust doesn't seem very "rubbery", just wondering---- :?:
Osmosis
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:08 am

The lack of a capability to stretch is why it would seem that a rupture would need to occur. But the cause of the rupture could have been an impact of an arc discharge that weakened the crust. My expectation is that the loss of crustal structural integrity led to other changes, such as size and surface orientation. The crust may not be flexible in its present condition and the fractures and faults speak of stresses that it could not adjust to without breakage. The material underneath is flexible however, and if it no longer was held in confinement it may recoil outwards until its reaches a new equalibtium of internal pressure to external.

I'm just thinking out loud here and in the process i want to avoid the addition of something that is too hard to be proven such as the creation of matter. d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:20 am

hi dahlenaz,
May i suggest this alternative perspective, that, 'if' expansion occured, it began with crustal failure which allowed the release of confining pressures upon the interior contents. We are told that the earth was broken up and this should be a starting point in a 'what would happen next' scenario.
[snip]
If so then there would be no need for the addition of matter to accomplish the change in size. The expansion need not "come from" (be caused by?) anything added, it would a consequence of the absence of confinement.

Thanks for that. Your suggestion avoids the 'matter' problem.
In your proposal, is Earth's expansion unique, that is, it occurred as a result of a series of conditions in Earth's history, and is not necessarily a condition of general planetary evolution?

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:11 pm

nick c wrote:hi dahlenaz,
May i suggest this alternative perspective, that, 'if' expansion occured, it began with crustal failure which allowed the release of confining pressures upon the interior contents. We are told that the earth was broken up and this should be a starting point in a 'what would happen next' scenario.
[snip]
If so then there would be no need for the addition of matter to accomplish the change in size. The expansion need not "come from" (be caused by?) anything added, it would a consequence of the absence of confinement.

Thanks for that. Your suggestion avoids the 'matter' problem.
In your proposal, is Earth's expansion unique, that is, it occurred as a result of a series of conditions in Earth's history, and is not necessarily a condition of general planetary evolution?

nick c



Yes, absolutely a series of conditions (which may apply to other bodies), but for the earth, it being associated with other events which were within human history, such as the removal of the earth from its previous orientation or relationship with another body as described by the chaos that accomplanied those events. Providing that those events can be validated, there seems to be good reason to associate dramatic crustal changes during that period. However my understanding of the mechanisms involved in the relationship of those bodies cannot allow me to elaborate in detail but i've gotten the impression that there is evidence of recent events that could be considered as probable contributors.

We know from many sources that the earth went through at least one stage of major upheaval and several cultures describe that as accompanied by the earth breaking apart and one source speaks of the earth rupturing to the degree that the fountains of the great deep burst forth.

I've mentioned elsewhere the curious fact that Iceland is the only island along the entire rift and fracture zone. It stands out as a sore thumb and yet i've never heard anyone acknowledge the possibility that this was an initiation point of a rupture, by whatever cause. It's location is enough to the opposite side of the globe from the pacific that it brings to mind what happens when a bullet hits an object. It makes a small mark on one side and a gaping wound on the other. If collision forces could also be transmitted through a body, causing similar effects of momentary displacement of the interior, this may have the consequence of a rupture and rebound effect tearing the opposite side open and then, as the recoil occured, spreading being completed back to the point of initial impact. I've seen very slow motion filming of bullistic tests and that is where this thought originates.

So what i'm suggesting is, weather the cause is self-caused rupture, impact collision, rupture after an arc discharge or being pulled apart by tidal-like forces from outside, a rupture would remove confinment pressures and allow deformation and a change to the amount of surface area as the pressurized interior contents got out of the container of the crust and then solidified. I suspect that this would certainly result in rotational changes and axis shift as well. If the rupture was also associated, as described, with jets of water erupting from below, then the sudden freezing of many creatures would find an explanation as would other mysterious findings. We must not deviate prematurely from the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence that defies gradualistic explanation. d...z
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:13 am

I am inclined to attempt to fill in some of the blanks of previous posts to
this thread to be sure I came across correctly.

I saw a typo in one post which twisted what I was saying into an unintended
statement. Here is how it should have rhed.
'So far in this experiment i can show expansion
>with->out< adding any mass,
just the removal of atmospheric pressure.'
Can anyone scale up the math on that factor?

When i speak of the earth being altered within human history, I'm not
speaking of the invented version proposed by conventional science. I'm just
referring to the stories brought to us from ancient texts. There are two
examples of a potential resculpting of the earth which could apply here. One
comes from the Genesis story of the garden of Eden. I don't know for sure
what was suggested by "a flaming sword at the east of the garden to guard
the way to the tree of life" but if we fast forward to what was found by
Columbus when he arrives in the Bahamas we find natives quite comfortable
in their own skin and of "such innocence that they were like children" who
lived on a garden like continent with treasures comparable to those
described for the kingdom of God. This got me thinking more about the
ancient story of Atlantis disappearing into the sea. Its location was said
to be west of the Pillars of Heracles (Gates of Gibraltar). Many have
suggested numerous islands of the Atlantic but they would not fit the
description. If sudden spreading occurred in such a manner that is revealed
by the Atlantic rift zone there could be good reason to think about the
americas as that sunken continent since it was regarded to be larger than
Asia and Libya combined. The movement from crustal expansion could give the
impression of a sinking island as it disappeared out of sight or as the
waters rose to cover connecting land. There is story of a floating island
would make sense from the perspective of people on a chunk of land that was
also being reoriented relative to surrounding references. The similarity
between Sumerian and Haida's (West Canadian Islanders) legends give another
clue about a distant time including the pillars of heaven which may relate
back to the swords of fire but this could be another reference which doesn't
mean as much as the commonalities of these people separated at opposite sides
of the globe. But a more notable aspect of the ancient record is the global
flood which may have been the first stage in a transformation, the later
stage being during the time of Peleg when the earth was divided by water.

Major catastrophes involving celestial bodies and interaction with earth,
coupled with consequences to this planet in the form of ruptures to the
crust with the release of its interior waters and the expansion of its
semi-liquid mantle would seem quite complementary to the many legends and
the evidence left behind. We just need to take their words with their
context and avoid sweeping generalization or dismissal.

You probably recognize some of these ideas which i've gleaned and assembled in
a manner that may be worth consideration. I'm comfortable with accepting
the words of the ancients for what the conveyed, and i think out of respect for
their efforts we should not overlook their honest effort lend insight into their time.

d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby moses » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:28 pm

Major catastrophes involving celestial bodies and interaction with earth,
coupled with consequences to this planet in the form of ruptures to the
crust with the release of its interior waters and the expansion of its
semi-liquid mantle would seem quite complementary to the many legends and
the evidence left behind. d...z


It is as if a giant in space had reached out and grabbed the lands around
where North and South America are now. Thus the rest of the Earth kept
turning but the grabbed land stayed still. So that the land piled up on the
eastern side and the land sunk on the western side. Hence the Andes and
the Rockies in the east, and the disappearance of a large area of land in
the west - Atlantis.

Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:24 pm

Mo,
You have added an observation that may have some recorded events to back it up maybe even a mechanism in either the close interaction of another body or a discharge. Considering the momentum of the earth, it may not take to kindly to being tugged or latched onto by an arc discharge. Just thinking about this reminds me of what it is like handing off an object between two people passing each other or do an egg toss and see how sudden stoppage or the lack of move-through in the catch can make a real mess.

I'd say between these several mechanisms there are more than enough probable mechanisms to account for the tearing of the earth's surface, now its just a matter of letting the evidence reveal the candidates.
Thanks for the input. And i do want to remind everyone to look into the Hydroplate theory for some carefully presented bits of evidence.
d...z
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:13 pm

You may recall earlier the vacuum experiment with a chocolet covered marshmellow, well, initial results are in and the surface did some unexpected things. It did begin to show signs of a rupture but it also developed sink holes of crater appearance and mounds of unbursted air pockets. This last one may be important in light of some features on mars that were mounds in early photos and pot-holes in a later image. I don't remember where that was posted but it has been noticed. d...z

I'll get some images up shortly at http://www.para-az.com/fractures.html or look for image dsc218 and up in the index page. Image link http://www.para-az.com/dsc218s35.jpg

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby dahlenaz » Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:28 pm

Another experiment will need to be conducted since the first one had a flaw in it which makes one feature to be not a consequence of vacuum alone. The large sink hole appeared where a pin hole had been. It was coated over but that wasn't good enough to keep it from reappearing. False start for that one, my appoloies. d...z
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kevin and 2 guests