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 keeha » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:44 pm

I'd like to see a detailed reckoning of all the pieces of jumbled crust as mountain ranges (only those known, not estimated to be 'sub ducted') and gaps in fjords and between islands to be mapped in 3D then see how the puzzle comes together on a smaller sphere.

If one assumes the earth is still growing today at rates the ocean floor indicates, perhaps volcanic activity and earthquakes tell us where and can offer some illumination of the process.

Image
Image
Earthquake epicenters 1963-1998: Image courtesy of NASA
Image
Age of Ocean Floor

Science Daily 0308: Layers Of Once Molten Rock Under The Atlantic Ocean Mapped

One could see things as: material added near the surface in ocean faults where mountains are not formed (usually) because of expansion, or material added near the surface under continents where due to the continent being limiting to lateral expansion, more material is pushed upwards (creating mountain ranges).

ScienceDaily, 0208: Geophysicists Show That Crust Temperature Variation Explains Half Of Elevation Differences In North America
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby keeha » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:35 am

Science Daily, Feb.08: Valérie Clouard, Muriel Gerbault, Break-up spots: Could the Pacific open as a consequence of plate kinematics?, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2007 Doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.10.013
Researchers from the IRD and the University of Chile focused on a group of islands and archipelagos in the central Pacific Ocean (Samoa, Cook, Rurutu, Austral, Tahiti, Marquis, Pitcairn), each listed as resulting from hot-spot activity. These scientists aimed to find out if movements of the Pacific plate where these seven hot spots are located could be involved in their formation...

The model shows the region to be the site of an East-West shear band which superimposes on the geographical zone where the seven hot spots investigated in the study are grouped.

Another model was subsequently built up that takes into account the cooling of the tectonic plate with increased distance from the oceanic ridge that generated it [or an expanding earth? -k]. This second model also brought evidence of a shearing band, but this zone appeared more diffuse towards the east than in the first simulation. Moreover, this more diffuse shearing zone was superimposed on an anomaly of the Earth's surface classically attributed to an upswelling of the oceanic lithosphere. This anomaly, caused by the upward pressure of the underlying mantle, appears along with an unexplained variation in the ocean floor. This second numerical model therefore indirectly allows the geographical location of the hot spots on an East/West line of weakened lithosphere to be matched with a variation in its thickness....

The results of this study ... envisages the involvement of ... strain within the tectonic plates during the formation of a certain type of hot spot volcanism. In the central Pacific, such deformation could therefore be a step towards the break-up of the Earth's largest tectonic plate into two in a timescale of around ten million years. Furthermore, if the movements of a tectonic plate were effectively to play a role in the formation of a hot spot, that would signify that such spots would not be so static as hitherto believed. The characteristic time-scale for heat-transfer processes in the mantle is in the order of more than 100 million years whereas the movement of the plates occurs over shorter geological time-scales of around ten million years. Certain hot spots could thus change and develop in space relatively rapidly, in line with displacements undergone by the tectonic plates.


keeha wrote: link ...the lower mantle—a region some 400 to 1,800 miles (660 to 2,900 kilometers) below the surface...
"Our results show that the conductivity of heat in this part of the lower Earth is driven by the amount of ferric iron in the mantle and the process of losing and gaining electrons,"
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:28 pm

keeha wrote:(not happy with this site's search feature)


BTW, keeha mentioned that the Forum's search function doesn't work that well, I agree.

What I do is open a window to Google and select their "Advanced Search" page and force Google to look only at the Thunderbolts site or the Forum specifically.

Or when you use Google just add the command string limiting where Google should look.

For the whole Thunderbolts site:
site:http://www.thunderbolts.info

For just the Forum:
site:http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum

Then you can search on specific strings and have more control over the results. I had a heck of a time finding anything when I needed to until I stumbled on that trick.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Interesting thread folks. Just come across this in my favs folder, don't know if it's any use to anyone:
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
http://understandearth.com/Whole-Earth% ... namics.htm
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:35 pm

keeha wrote: link ...the lower mantle—a region some 400 to 1,800 miles (660 to 2,900 kilometers) below the surface...
"Our results show that the conductivity of heat in this part of the lower Earth is driven by the amount of ferric iron in the mantle and the process of losing and gaining electrons,"


I think I see where you're going with this.

- When the Earth gets hit again by a major plasma event the Pacific plate will start to split too, possibly at the hot spots.

I think you are right. The articles you mention talk about iron in the crust at key points and an increase in electron flow. There are many TPODs that mention nucleosynthesis of silicon into iron, so I can see that if a plasma strike hits an area and goes deep that you would not just have crust rise up in a blister, but you'd also have the amount of iron increase, changing conductivity, helping pump more energy into the crust at that point.

Neal Adams has a few examples of how the planets grow, with the new crust cooling into plates and then those plates breaking over time.

- Cool plates splitting into new.

- Old crust forming mountains and then splitting.

- A large plate splitting up into many pieces.

Stuff like this is mentioned in the book Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky, by Charles Ginenthal, they talk about mountain building. Around page 125-126 they mention Darwin's observations about the Andes, how he found what looks like a brand new coastline.

- BTW, I'll be glad when the e-book version is available (hint, hint, to Mikamar Publishing) so that it is easier to search and find stuff, and add notes. (Adobe is great for making searchable notes in an e-book. But I digress .)

That brings me to a key question that needs to be answered.

- How much did the Earth grow during the Saturn Event.

Different groups talk about how the sky has radically changed in the past ten thousand years, and that we need to understand that to put Earth history into context. If the Earth grew as well, then everything changes.

We look at the Earth now and make assumptions about population movements, who was in contact with each other, wonder how the Pacific islands were settled, all based on the Earth as it is now. Now step through the end of the video, where he is showing both sides of the Earth, and see how close everything was at different points in the growth and think about:

- Places like Easter Island may not have been out in the middle of nowhere. The people may have been deserted by events.

- I don't want to get all New Agey when I mention Atlantis--I don't want to lose everybody by talking about "Atlantis", after all it's just a myth, right?--but if the Earth grew during the Saturn Event then the stories about Atlantis could simply be descriptions of the Americas when they were closer to Europe and parts of it were below sea level. When the boats that normally traded with "Atlantis" went out they didn't find the destination and decided that it must have sunk beneath the waves.

The work that Thor Heyerdahl did trying to recreate the routes of ancient mariners would make more sense on a smaller Earth. Many of the legends, pre-Saturn Event, make more sense on a smaller Earth, and we need to put them into that perspective.

You may have heard this phrase before.

- When you only have a hammer, then you use that hammer for everything.

When you watch the Neal Adams videos, notice that he doesn't know about the stuff being done by the EU/plasma cosmology people, so he is missing pieces of the puzzle.

- The Eu group sees plasma cutting to form craters and large formations, the GET group sees planet growth and meteor impacts to describe things.

- The Saturn Events group use the sky changing to explain history, the GET group use the Earth growing to explain events.

I'll be glad when everybody starts using all the "tools" and they begin building something great.

I'll end with this great slow motion look at the growing Earth.

As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:03 pm



I love the satellite image of the Earth and the rotating Earth gif. I try to collect gifs like that.

For a long time I suspected that Mercury was the iron core of a gas giant. I'm still waiting to find out.

Thanks for the link to the Whole-earth decompression dynamics pdf.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:11 pm

Check out these YouTube videos from J. Marvin Herndon.

Thanks to Grey Cloud for the links.

Herndon works on the premise that the core is liquid. The example he gives, showing that convection can't happen, are the best I've seen.

Origin of Earth's Magnetic Field

No Mantle Convection!!!

21st Century Earth Dynamics Part 1

21st Century Earth Dynamics Part2

I don't understand his description of the central power source for the Earth's magnetic field, but stuff like this is fun.

His description of how the Earth was born from a gas giant was what I thought for years had happened to Mercury. That the sun had blown away the gas shell leaving the metal rich core. I will be interested to see the different options that come up over time.

- A Growing Earth, as shown by the Neal Adams videos, would continue to grow as energy is added. Think of the damage this can cause. Buildings are designed to stand up under a 1G field. If the planet keeps growing, look out, buildings will come down; plus, forget about ever losing weight.

- An Expanding Earth, as Herndon shows, would be at the end of its expansion but subject to catastrophic crust melting the way NOVA describes happens in Venus Unveiled. When you read the transcript you will see that the debate was over uniformitarianism versus catastrophism. Basically, once the expansion stops, the heat builds up and melts the crust catastrophically because there is no convection to cool the system. Yikes!

Either description of the Earth; hollow and still growing, or solid and building up heat, is scary as hell. I love it!

As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:49 pm

keeha wrote:
Total Science wrote:Keeha,

The mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth so that's quite impossible.

We could argue size, but volcanos are clear evidence that plumes are able to move through the mantle.

Nonsense. Volcanoes aren't in the mantle nor does their magma originate in the mantle.

The mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth.

"...no matter what the temperature of the outer core is, and most likely it is quite high, the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth, for example for P waves from 6-7 km/sec in the surface layers to about 14 km/sec at the mantle-core boundary." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, October 2008

Bonatti, E., et al., A Cold Suboceanic Mantle Belt at the Earth's Equator, Science, Volume 261, Number 5119, Pages 315-320, Jul 1993

Christie, D.M., et al., Chaotic Topography, Mantle Flow and Mantle Migration In the Australian-Antarctic Discordance, Nature, 394, Pages 637-644, Aug 1998

Liu, K.H., et al., A Cold Mantle Transition Zone Beneath the Baikal Rift, American Geophysical Union, Abstract DI41A-1266, Dec 2005

Eleanora Sichel, S., et al., Geophysical and Geochemical Evidence for Cold Upper Mantle Beneath the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean, Revista Brasileira Geofisica, Volume 26, Number 1, Jan/Mar 2008

NASA Satellite Finds Interior of Mars Is Colder, 2008

Mars Cold Goes Down Deep, 2008
"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 seasmith » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:13 pm

Here’s a bit common sense take on growth of mid-ocean ridges, spreading and transverse cracking seafloor, etc., from the Feb 2009 Scientific American:

Image

“I n recent years mathematical models of the interaction between molten and solid rock have provided some answers, as have examinations of blocks of old seafloor now exposed on the continents. These insights made it possible to develop a detailed theory describing the birth of ocean crust. The process turns out to be quite different from the typical layperson's idea, in which fiery magma fills an enormous chamber underneath a volcano, then rages upward along a jagged crack. Instead the process begins dozens of kilometers under the seafloor, where tiny droplets of melted rock ooze through microscopic pores at a rate of about 10 centimeters a year, about as fast as fingernails grow. Closer to the surface, the process speeds up, culminating with massive streams of lava pouring over the seafloor with the velocity of a speeding truck.”



Knowledge of the intense heat and pressure in the mantle led researchers to hypothesize in the late 1960s that ocean crust originates as tiny amounts of liquid rock known as melt almost as though the solid rocks were "sweating."
Even a minuscule release of pressure (because of material rising from its original position) causes melt to form in microscopic pores deep within the mantle rock.”


Using specialized equipment to heat and squeeze crystals from mantle rocks in the laboratory, investigators learned that the chemical composition… One of the most important implications of this process, called focused porous flow.

Typically, when oceanic crust gets old and cold, it becomes so dense that it sinks back into the mantle along deep trenches known as subduction zones, such as those that encircle the Pacific Ocean. Ophiolites, on the other hand, are thick sections of old seafloor and adjacent, underlying mantle that are thrust up onto continents when two of the planet's tectonic plates collide. A famous example, located in the Sultanate of Oman, was exposed during the ongoing collision of the Arabian and Eurasian plates. In this and other ophiolites, Nicolas's team found unusual, light-colored veins called dikes, which they interpreted as cracks in which melt had crystallized before reaching the seafloor….”


The authors don’t explicitly draw the analogy, but I will. The process, in whole, resembles the healing of a major bodily wound. The wound is raised and filled by a capillary welling up of the warmer plasmic material.
[Pus} packets are formed and relieved.
The bordering epidermal layers cool, shrink and crack.
The upwelling plasmic substance is continually replaced (by the body consuming external sustenance ??).

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-origin-of-the-ocean-floor

They also provide a cogent analogy, for the first coalescing-and then fanning out of the superficial flows, to terrestrial riverine systems (with good images in the paper magazine edition).

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:13 pm

seasmith wrote:Here’s a bit common sense take on growth of mid-ocean ridges, spreading and transverse cracking seafloor, etc., from the Feb 2009 Scientific American:


Great SciAm article.

This was a great discussion of the power of Fluid Mechanics. Everything can be modeled using Fluid Mechanics. If you pick the right model for the actual event, you can predict things from the model and then go looking to see if they match reality.

The link at the end of the article points to a page showing movies of the process. Remember, you can right-click the gifs and save them to your desktop. They run fine in quicktime.

Watch the movies and you will see they look just like plasma motion.

A simple example of the flow they are talking about is the way bubbles form in a glass of soda. The CO2 squeezes out of the liquid along the small flaws in the surface of the glass. The bubbles grow until they float up.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Krackonis » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:21 am

I have posted two videos by Dennis McCarthy regarding his papers and research into the expanding earth. He also uses the theory to explain the lopsided hemispheres on our planet.

I know I oft subscribe to a different cloth than many here, but I fear that the mechanism is clearly before our eyes and we just fail to grasp the logical conclusion of the paradigm.

Here they are for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3rholKox10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU&

I have put forth (in my view plausible) mechanisms for this growth and the abundance of heat within the planet.
Neil Thompson

'Armchair Scholar'

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:37 am

Krackonis wrote:I have posted two videos by Dennis McCarthy regarding his papers and research into the expanding earth. He also uses the theory to explain the lopsided hemispheres on our planet.

I know I oft subscribe to a different cloth than many here, but I fear that the mechanism is clearly before our eyes and we just fail to grasp the logical conclusion of the paradigm.

Dennis is a genius in my opinion.

You will find him often quoted here.
"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 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:40 am

Proto-planetary earth was much like Jupiter conception:

J.M.Herdon. A new dynamic conception of the internal constitution of the earth. Current Science, Vol.89 No.11, 2005.

This one promises a lot, but one has to pay:
International Journal of Earth Sciences, June22,2005: A new dynamic conception of the internal constitution of the earth
It is shown, furthermore, that the expansion of the Earth is able to account for the formation of the crust and oceanic basins, the energies of tectonic forces and earthquakes, the origin of deep-focus earthquakes, the periodicity of geological phenomena, the continental drift and mountain building, and is supported also by paleogeographical data.
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:02 pm

Krackonis wrote:I have posted two videos by Dennis McCarthy regarding his papers and research into the expanding earth.


Amazing videos. I love the first video, I hate the second video. Don't take that in a negative way. The first is everything I want to do with the videos I'm planning. The second shows me what not to do; too much talking. The two videos together are the best example I could possibly find of how to do this kind of video.

Thanks...

BTW, I have an odd question. Does anyone know how to copy youtube videos to the desktop. If they were quicktime I could do that, but I don't know how to copy videos using flash.

Any ideas?
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm


PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests