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 Total Science » Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:51 am

No such physical material thing as a vacuum.

Nonbeing is the opposite of being.

Nonbeing cannot exist in physical material actuality.

Vacuums only exist in imaginary mathematical space.

There is no constant speed of light c and Special Relativity is a joke.

Growing planets and moons on the other hand are an empirical scientific fact so let's get back on topic.
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby keeha » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:06 pm

Another piece of supporting theory that fits a trigger timeline suggested by ocean floor date. Hard to read much from MSM text and I have not been able to find the original.
MSNBC, Dec.12,08: Rising hot material upset convection in Earth's core, says new theory
Now a new theory suggests the catastrophe was set in motion 15 million years earlier [265 million years], deep in the Earth. On the edge of the molten outer core, a plume of super-hot material began rising through the mantle, upsetting convection in the core and throwing the planet's magnetic field into disarray.

The weakening of Earth's magnetic field exposed the surface to a shower of cosmic radiation, says Yukio Isozaki of the University of Tokyo...
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:25 pm

Keeha,

The mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth so that's quite impossible.
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby sol88 » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:31 pm

If H2O can be classed as mass why not!


* Report this post
* Reply with quote

A stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun

Postby rcglinsk on Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:46 am
New fun stuff from NASA:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008 ... rprise.htm

NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft made the discovery: "It was a burst of hydrogen atoms," says Mewaldt. "No other elements were present, not even helium (the sun's second most abundant atomic species). Pure hydrogen streamed past the spacecraft for a full 90 minutes."

Next came more than 30 minutes of quiet. The burst subsided and STEREO's particle counters returned to low levels. The event seemed to be over when a second wave of particles enveloped the spacecraft. These were the "broken atoms" that flares are supposed to produce—protons and heavier ions such as helium, oxygen and iron. "Better late than never," he says.


IF ya burn H and O...?

And if the Earth can "trap" this Hydrogen like this

* Report this post
* Reply with quote

"Magnetic Portals" Connect Sun and Earth Electrically!

Postby MGmirkin on Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:02 am
They seem to be getting close to the EU explanation. Now if they could just nudge their terminology in the right direction a bit...

"Plasma sheath," "double layer," "dielectric breakdown," "Birkeland currents" ...

(Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth)
http://digg.com/space/Magnetic_Portals_ ... s_electric
http://digg.com/space/Magnetic_Portals_ ... nts_anyone

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

[...]

Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere.

"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic."

[...]

On the dayside of Earth (the side closest to the sun), Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow. The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth. The European Space Agency's fleet of four Cluster spacecraft and NASA's five THEMIS probes have flown through and surrounded these cylinders, measuring their dimensions and sensing the particles that shoot through. "They're real," says Sibeck.

[...]

He told his colleagues that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and then roll over Earth's winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the north pole; in July they roll over the south pole.

Sibeck believes this is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.)

[...]

There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? "We're doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop," says Sibeck.

Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting your planet to the sun.


Seems when we work out how the planet does it, make water that is, then we my not have to lug the stuff around with us when we go off planet as well as having a clean power source to boot!!! Now if we could just work out a way to "grow" our own food using "universe dew" and electric light....

So I would summize that there could indeed be a mechanism at work that can add mass to the Earth (or any planet/spacecraft with the right electrical connection/configuration!
“Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright
User avatar
sol88
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:22 am
Location: The East Kimberley, Western Australia

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:29 pm

by nick c on Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:53 pm

"3. Where did all the water come from?"

This question, I believe, is equally bedeviling for the Plate Tectonics model as it is for the Expansion Tectonics model. If the earth has cooled from a molten mass, where did the water come from? Hydrogen would have had to outgas from the rocks, and the combination with Oxygen would be incredibly explosive. Hydrogen in itself being incredibly light, it could not have been held by earth's gravity, and would have been in some other combination.

Others say that the water arrived on comets. This is interesting. That is a lot of comets full of water. And we all know comets are responsible for everything! ;)

What is the EU answer for water formation? I hope it is addressed in the books, which I am looking forward to reading this month.
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby mnemeth1 » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:48 pm

I believe the EU hypothesis is that solid body planets are ejected from gas giants (which can be dwarf stars depending on their location).

If we assume the following:

1. earth was electrically ejected as a fully formed solid body from a brown dwarf / gas giant planet

2. earth orbited in the red glow discharge of the brown dwarf's heliosphere where it accumulated its vast quantities of water

3. the brown dwarf (speculated to be Saturn) was electrically caputred by the sun.

4. during the capture process, earth was pulled out of orbit from Saturn and placed in orbit around the sun at our present location.

5. since earth was a compacted body formed under pressure inside the gas giant, then placed in a low gravity environment around the gas giant, it would make sense that we see an expansion of earth as its placed in the high gravity enviroment of the sun. Gravity being a function of the electrical environment.

As was stated earlier, if the earth is a hollow sphere and gravity is a property of matter, gravity will act on both sides causing it to expand without the need for the creation of new matter. Scientists today dimiss the notion of a hollow earth simply because their mass calculations mandate that the core be something incredibly dense. Since EU theory says our notions of mass are wrong, the need for that iron core could be accounted for by other means.

Hollow earth theory has had its own little following for quite sometime. I don't think they've ever put the whole thing together though.

If EU theory is right (which it is) and gravity is a property of matter, then gravity at the walls of an internal hollow earth would not be zero, it would hold you to the walls of the internal sphere (at 1/2 earth's surface gravity?). I suppose the very very center might still be zero gravity as the gravitational pull from the matter above and below you would cancel each other out.

Interesting to think about.
mnemeth1
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:03 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby moses » Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:33 pm

by nick c on Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:53 pm

"3. Where did all the water come from?"


First - electrical conditions can produce atoms. Oxygen atoms are
stable and so are produced in abundance. The oxygen reacts with
hydrogen and we get water on stars and dwarfs, as is shown by
astronomy studies. Then a large Birkeland current passing a star
will cause this star to split. Now, if there are heavier elements
on the surface of this star, or in it's core, then some of this
heavier material can 'lump', whilst the water surrounds this lump.

A crude description but once one sees oxygen forming, heavier
elements forming in stars, and the splitting of stars, then there
is great scope for life, and water, everywhere.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:18 pm

This description of water formation is on pg 84 in The Electric Universe, almost as an aside.

"Imagine Jupiter and its moons, outside the Sun's influence. Jupiter would become a dim star (brown dwarf) enclosed in the radiant red shell of its 'anode glow.' It is a hospitabe environment for life because the radiant energy arriving on a satellite orbiting inside a glowing sphere is evenly distributed over its entire surface. There are no seasons, no tropics and no ice caps. A satellite does not have to rotate and its axis can point in any direction.

The radiant energy will be strongest at the blue and red ends of the spectrum. Photosynthesis relies on red light. L-type brown dwarfs have water as a dominat molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its satellites would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down..."

Now, let me get this nailed down. On the question of brown dwarves having water in their spectra, I immediately reach for my wallet, because it seems to me that scientists are always playing fast and loose with that word water. It usually isn't there (ie comets, the moon, Mars...).

In this article
http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/pressro ... rowndwarf/
paragraph 15, water is not actually in the spectra, is that right? Do they burn bright enough to give a spectra? Please bear with me, I do not have a science background.

mnemeth1 thank you
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:03 am

mnemeth1 wrote:If EU theory is right (which it is) and gravity is a property of matter, then gravity at the walls of an internal hollow earth would not be zero, it would hold you to the walls of the internal sphere (at 1/2 earth's surface gravity?). I suppose the very very center might still be zero gravity as the gravitational pull from the matter above and below you would cancel each other out.

Interesting to think about.

Hollow Earth is not Expanding Earth and gravity is a myth.

Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation, 1946

"Originally it was thought the Earth was flat. Then spherical but with the continents anchored in rock. When Alfred Wegener noted that continents fitted together like jigsaw puzzle and therefore had been pulled apart, it was violently rejected because geologists said they were anchored in basaltic rock. Finally it was found that the Atlantic trench between the Americas and Africa/Europe was opening up at a rate of just about right for the Earth's estimated age (Kokus, 2002). So mainstream geologists invented plate tectonics where the continents skated blythly around on top of this anchoring rock! In 1958 the noted Geologist S. Warren Carey and in 1965 K. M. Creer (in the old, usefully scientific Nature Magazine) were among those who articulated the obvious, namely that the Earth is expanding. The controversy between plate tectonics and expanding Earth has been acrid ever since." -- Halton Arp, astronomer, 2005
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby kevin » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:56 am

TotalScience,
That link You just posted is brilliant, I have looked through it twice, and it gets better each time.
Cheers.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?
by kevin on Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:56 am

TotalScience,
That link You just posted is brilliant, I have looked through it twice, and it gets better each time.
Cheers.
Kevin


http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

It Is an oldey, but goldey .

Altonhare,

Have you read that one ?

~s~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby keeha » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:37 am

While this article is more directly about non-taxable contributions to climate change, I tought I would post it as it may be another piece of an expanding puzzle.
[url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/au9x40l201105273/?p=c4a331c2e7814daa8a8dbb512f51c531&pi=49]
Gilbert P. Compo and Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Oceanic influences on recent continental warming, Journal of Climate Dynamics, Issue Volume 32, Numbers 2-3 / February, 2009 Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg[/url]
Abstract Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:10 pm

Hi Brigit Bara, seasmith, moses, Total Science, and all;
My question- "where did the water come from?" was put forth in regard to the Expanding Earth video, which showed the continents all fitted together on a smaller globe with hardly any oceans, then when the Earth expanded to it's present size, large and deep oceans appear. So as the Earth expanded water must have been added, while a Saturn/brown dwarf could have been the source then the expansion and deluge would have been quick and catastrophic. This seems to be in contrast to the theory (Expanding Earth) as put forth by S. Warren Carey and Neil Adams, which is basically uniformitarian, postulating a slow expansion as taking place within the currently accepted geological timescales. And even implying that (citing Europa as an example) this process is the normal state of planetary evolution. Correct me if I am wrong about this, as I know that I am making some assumptions here.

Brigit Bara wrote:Now, let me get this nailed down. On the question of brown dwarves having water in their spectra, I immediately reach for my wallet, because it seems to me that scientists are always playing fast and loose with that word water. It usually isn't there (ie comets, the moon, Mars...).

In this article
http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/pressro ... rowndwarf/
paragraph 15, water is not actually in the spectra, is that right? Do they burn bright enough to give a spectra? Please bear with me, I do not have a science background.


Yes, spectra for nearby brown dwarfs can be obtained and it seems that there is evidence in support of the presence of water, especially with the smaller brown dwarfs. Astronomers deduce the composition of stars by analyzing [url2=http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/spectra.html#absorption]absorption lines[/url2] in the stars' spectra.
The complex spectra of brown dwarfs are the result of many absorption features caused by the presence of molecules such as water, methane, ammonia, and carbon monoxide.
http://web.mit.edu/ajb/www/papers/physicstoday.pdf
highlight added

Astronomers claims for finding water on Mars, Moon, or Comets would be given added support if it were from spectral analysis, as it is in the case of Brown Dwarfs, that is not always so. It seems that the main reason for the claims for water on comets, for example, is assumed due to theoretical (Whipple's dirty snowball theory) requirements, ie explanation of cometary jets. Probes did not find adequate quantities of water on comets so mainstream astronomers said it must be hidden in the interior. Not that comets are totally devoid of water, the EU does not have any specific requirement for the composition of comets or asteroids. With respect to Mars, the Moon, etc... the jury is still out as to any or how much H2O, but any type of spectral evidence would be in strong support.

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 Brigit Bara » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:09 pm

Hello nick c, thank you for the fantastic brown dwarf link. Nice and pithy! :)

I see at the end of the article, it says that some of the jury is still out inre to water on brown dwarves, but the "absorbtion lines" point was very helpful and I appreciate the comeback.

PS, Could there be another explanation for the cause of earth expansion than "creation of matter," or a hollow earth under decreased pressure? What about a gas in a liquid form? Hydrogen is a conductor, is very reactive, and they find hydrogen mud in deep drilling. Or how about Oxygen? It is in the atmosphere, is part of water, and "some 46% of the earth's crust is oxygen...it is by far the most abundant element found there." (Albert Stwertka) I could not find anything about it's conductivity, and I realize this is a wild guess. But think of how convenient it would be. The Hydrogen would come from the sun, and combine with the earth's Oxygen to form as much water as you like. Gases expand. Aahm just sayin'...
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:46 am

I have seen a convincing theory of how neutrinos are converted into electrons at the center of the earths fusion reactor.
This is where the new matter originates. If correct, there is an endless supply of new matter available.
http://www.mininova.org/tor/108251
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests