Are the planets growing?

[Aardwolf]

Technically all 2 body systems are binary systems so by definition the Earth is not orbiting the sun either, nor are any other planets/satellites etc. However, to avoid confusion, normally to be refered to as binary system, the centre of mass needs to not be located within either of the bodies own mass. So by this amended definition, the Earth/Moon system is not referred to as binary.

I'm not sure what impact this has on the Expanding/Growing Earth theory though.

Actually, from my understanding the Earth/Moon is the only planet/moon combination in which the moon(s) does not orbit the equator. The orbiting of the moons occur along the equator of the parent planet. EU Theories indicate this is due to the electric influence of the parent planet pushing the moons to the "Faraday motor" equilibrium along the equator.

I am not sure if the center of mass has anything to do with it.

All planets and moons are inclined to some degree or another, although our moon maybe one of the largest compared to its size.

[Krackonis]

Technically all 2 body systems are binary systems so by definition the Earth is not orbiting the sun either, nor are any other planets/satellites etc. However, to avoid confusion, normally to be refered to as binary system, the centre of mass needs to not be located within either of the bodies own mass. So by this amended definition, the Earth/Moon system is not referred to as binary.

I'm not sure what impact this has on the Expanding/Growing Earth theory though.

Actually, from my understanding the Earth/Moon is the only planet/moon combination in which the moon(s) does not orbit the equator. The orbiting of the moons occur along the equator of the parent planet. EU Theories indicate this is due to the electric influence of the parent planet pushing the moons to the "Faraday motor" equilibrium along the equator.

I am not sure if the center of mass has anything to do with it.

All planets and moons are inclined to some degree or another, although our moon maybe one of the largest compared to its size.

Correct. However, all moons, besides our moon, orbit along the equator of their parent planet. They do not move up and down as they cross the sky. They are always directly overhead if you are standing on the equator of the planet in question. (Well they could be east or west, but assuming you got as close as you could, it would be the equator of the planet which is closest to the moon(s) at all times.)

This does not happen to our moon. It moves north and south throughout the month. It is not guided by our electromagnetic field. (It is likely influenced by it, but as to how much I am not versed enough to discern.)

[webolife]

Traditionally the simple reason for the Earth-Moon system to be called binary was the relatively close sizes of the two bodies, compared to other planetary-moon systems. The barycenter of the E-M binary is obviously within the earth's diameter, but I've never heard this as being a reason NOT to consider it a binary pair. The "off-center" barycenter is in fact the reason we have two tide cycles each day, instead of just one. This observation stands regardless of one's view on EE, EU, or CD. Gravitationally this is easily explained.

[Aardwolf]

Technically all 2 body systems are binary systems so by definition the Earth is not orbiting the sun either, nor are any other planets/satellites etc. However, to avoid confusion, normally to be refered to as binary system, the centre of mass needs to not be located within either of the bodies own mass. So by this amended definition, the Earth/Moon system is not referred to as binary.

I'm not sure what impact this has on the Expanding/Growing Earth theory though.

Actually, from my understanding the Earth/Moon is the only planet/moon combination in which the moon(s) does not orbit the equator. The orbiting of the moons occur along the equator of the parent planet. EU Theories indicate this is due to the electric influence of the parent planet pushing the moons to the "Faraday motor" equilibrium along the equator.

I am not sure if the center of mass has anything to do with it.

All planets and moons are inclined to some degree or another, although our moon maybe one of the largest compared to its size.

Correct. However, all moons, besides our moon, orbit along the equator of their parent planet. They do not move up and down as they cross the sky. They are always directly overhead if you are standing on the equator of the planet in question. (Well they could be east or west, but assuming you got as close as you could, it would be the equator of the planet which is closest to the moon(s) at all times.)

This does not happen to our moon. It moves north and south throughout the month. It is not guided by our electromagnetic field. (It is likely influenced by it, but as to how much I am not versed enough to discern.)

I must be missing something. You are describing orbital inclination which all moons have to some degree. Some even have greater inclinations than our moon so I dont follow why you state other orbit their planets equator. Are you describing a different effect than inclination?

[Aardwolf]

Traditionally the simple reason for the Earth-Moon system to be called binary was the relatively close sizes of the two bodies, compared to other planetary-moon systems. The barycenter of the E-M binary is obviously within the earth's diameter, but I've never heard this as being a reason NOT to consider it a binary pair. The "off-center" barycenter is in fact the reason we have two tide cycles each day, instead of just one. This observation stands regardless of one's view on EE, EU, or CD. Gravitationally this is easily explained.

I was just offereing a reason why some had not heard of the E-M system being a binary system. The term is normally reserved for 2 body systems where the barycenter is not within either body. Although technically all 2 body systems are binary, irrespective of their relative sizes.

[Brigit Bara]

Changing em conditions on the earth have come up several times on the thread.

nick c wrote:

Ralph Juergens wrote:
Now what if the Earth's state of electrification were altered, even if
only temporarily? It would seem to follow that decay rates for
radionuclides might well differ radically from today's norms.

http://www.aig.asn.au/pdf/AIGNews_May06.pdf
The short version is that electrical discharges and varying electrical conditions change radioactive decay rates. So basically, it is a measuring stick that assumes conditions have always been the same as those observed today. In the EU that assumption is not valid. If conventional dating is going to be used as support for the EE then it is going to be contested by someone here, in this case..moi.

It also was mentioned as a potential stimulant for plant growth. I asked how an electrical catastrophe might effect brain function and organization.

I have found an interesting application for a patent which proposes a method of extending the shelf-life of liquids with an em field of up to 5,000 volts per cm, using quick current pulses.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4695472/claims.html

I wonder if this could have implications for the longevity of life in previous eras?

[Krackonis]

Technically all 2 body systems are binary systems so by definition the Earth is not orbiting the sun either, nor are any other planets/satellites etc. However, to avoid confusion, normally to be refered to as binary system, the centre of mass needs to not be located within either of the bodies own mass. So by this amended definition, the Earth/Moon system is not referred to as binary.

I'm not sure what impact this has on the Expanding/Growing Earth theory though.

Actually, from my understanding the Earth/Moon is the only planet/moon combination in which the moon(s) does not orbit the equator. The orbiting of the moons occur along the equator of the parent planet. EU Theories indicate this is due to the electric influence of the parent planet pushing the moons to the "Faraday motor" equilibrium along the equator.

I am not sure if the center of mass has anything to do with it.

All planets and moons are inclined to some degree or another, although our moon maybe one of the largest compared to its size.

Correct. However, all moons, besides our moon, orbit along the equator of their parent planet. They do not move up and down as they cross the sky. They are always directly overhead if you are standing on the equator of the planet in question. (Well they could be east or west, but assuming you got as close as you could, it would be the equator of the planet which is closest to the moon(s) at all times.)

This does not happen to our moon. It moves north and south throughout the month. It is not guided by our electromagnetic field. (It is likely influenced by it, but as to how much I am not versed enough to discern.)

I must be missing something. You are describing orbital inclination which all moons have to some degree. Some even have greater inclinations than our moon so I dont follow why you state other orbit their planets equator. Are you describing a different effect than inclination?

I think you are missing me. The moon does not orbit the earth's equator. It travels north and south during it's orbit. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, all the moons of them all orbit the equator. Like the rings of Saturn they do not go north and south, they orbit the equator.

You could say the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun's equator.

[remelic]

Krackonis is right about the moon. It does orbit around the Earth's poles sorta, and not the equator like you would expect.

[Krackonis]

Krackonis is right about the moon. It does orbit around the Earth's poles sorta, and not the equator like you would expect.

Well, not around the poles, but definately moves in a sine wave up and down along the equator as it orbits. Certainly not like the other moons orbiting other planets.

[remelic]

Correct. I didn't mean directly around the poles. but sorta. Anyway it is interesting to point this out. Maybe it is because the moon is younger compared to the rest? The moon could have been created during the last strike or maybe it was knocked off axis by this event. Either way it is an intriguing topic.

Peter

[webolife]

The moon revolves at an angle that is closer to the ecliptic than Earth's 23deg off. This gives the appearance over time of the moon's orbital plane shifting back and forth across the equator, but only with respect to an earthbound observer. Sidereally if there is a real shift it would be imperceptible over a lifetime. At the extreme, relative to the ecliptic, when the earth is tilted 23deg one way and the moon's orbit is tilted say 2deg the other way, there can be 25deg or more disparity from the equator. With respect to growing planets, it seems that the moon's orbital pattern must be correlated in some way to the EE theory... what say you EE folks?

[remelic]

The moon revolves at an angle that is closer to the ecliptic than Earth's 23deg off. This gives the appearance over time of the moon's orbital plane shifting back and forth across the equator, but only with respect to an earthbound observer. Sidereally if there is a real shift it would be imperceptible over a lifetime. At the extreme, relative to the ecliptic, when the earth is tilted 23deg one way and the moon's orbit is tilted say 2deg the other way, there can be 25deg or more disparity from the equator. With respect to growing planets, it seems that the moon's orbital pattern must be correlated in some way to the EE theory... what say you EE folks?

Ah yes. That is why the planets align with the moon all the time. This also explains how the moon could have been a discharge anode and why only this side of the moon is scarred and expanded and not the other. That clears it up for me a lot. heh

[Krackonis]

The moon revolves at an angle that is closer to the ecliptic than Earth's 23deg off. This gives the appearance over time of the moon's orbital plane shifting back and forth across the equator, but only with respect to an earthbound observer. Sidereally if there is a real shift it would be imperceptible over a lifetime. At the extreme, relative to the ecliptic, when the earth is tilted 23deg one way and the moon's orbit is tilted say 2deg the other way, there can be 25deg or more disparity from the equator. With respect to growing planets, it seems that the moon's orbital pattern must be correlated in some way to the EE theory... what say you EE folks?

Ah yes. That is why the planets align with the moon all the time. This also explains how the moon could have been a discharge anode and why only this side of the moon is scarred and expanded and not the other. That clears it up for me a lot. heh

I think this speaks more to catastrophism than it speaks to EE or EU theories ;P The moon and the earth are sister planets orbitting the sun, they only recently came together, or so the new story goes.

I don't think all planets expanded (are expanding). I would think it takes certain circumstances as it does with Concretions and Geodes on earth. Only a rare few show any expansion from within. We see the expansion on some and we should examine these concretions to determine how it occured.

Neal Adam's works regarding other planets are less conclusive than the earth based works, However, some are more convincing than others. Ganymede, for example, looks very interesting.

[Aardwolf]

I think you are missing me. The moon does not orbit the earth's equator. It travels north and south during it's orbit. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, all the moons of them all orbit the equator. Like the rings of Saturn they do not go north and south, they orbit the equator.

You could say the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun's equator.

Where do you get the idea that all other moons orbit their respective planets equators?

Below is an image depicting Jupiters moons and orbits. Do they look like they are all obiting its equator?

300px-Jupiter_moons_anim.gif (17.2 KiB) Viewed 8654 times

[remelic]

How does this relate to growing planets? What is the argument here?