Are the planets growing?

[GaryN]

I realise it is probably not so simple, but I remember being told at school
(a long time ago!) that if the oxygen level was above a certain point, everything
would burn all the time, and too low and nothing would burn. I haven't come upon
any hard and fast figures, but this kind of confirms the idea.

Even a small increase in the oxygen level in the air to 24% can create a dangerous
situation. It becomes easier to start a fire, which will then burn hotter and more
fiercely than in normal air. It may be almost impossible to put the fire out.

So 30-35% would be dangerous indeed. Would a much higher CO2 level counteract the
oxygen reaction, or perhaps the high humidity of the Earth at that time?

[Sparky]

...could the electric currents entering earth be sufficient to increase matter that is detectable as an expanding earth?

Exactly. The electric current flowing through the Earth is what drives the growth. As the current increases the growth increases, and as the current drops the growth slows, that's why you have uneven thickness of the crust.

Without the Electric Universe the Earth could not grow.

thank you...and thank all others for input.

has the composition of plasma entering earth been completely and accurately measured?..are heavy particles being carried along with the plasma currents?

would the electric currents entering earth possibly create a pinch around the core strong enough to transmute some of the ions in that current into heavier elements?

if this mechanism is working at earth's core, wouldn't the radiation produced be converted to heat?

webolife "-If you could show me how electrically induced transformational or transmutational processes could result in overall enlargement in any time frame,-

go outside at noon next summer and look straight up... ..

thank you....

[lgcamp]

Is there really more matter? Or are the atoms just farther apart due to expansion? We would not necessarily notice they had spread farther apart if we ourselves did the same. Let's say you measure an apple with a ruler and see that the apple is 3 inches in diameter. If EVERYTHING expands proportionally and at the same time, then you will not notice that the ruler, which now appears to measure the apple at exactly the same 3 inches it measured before has also expanded, along with yourself and everything around it.

If everything expands at the same rate, we would not be able to detect expansion. If everything expands, but at differing rates, then we can detect expansion in some cases. If scientists know that stars are farther away from earth than they used to be, it may mean that expansion is not uniform. Otherwise, they would not be able to detect this expansion.

If the earth once had a single continent that covered the expanse of earth, then broke apart due to earth's expansion, resulting in today's placement of the continents, then expansion has occured. Can it be that some things expand over a short enough time that we can detect the expansion while other things expand so slowly that we cannot detect their expansion?

Hey, I'm just looking for answers. What are your thoughts?

Linda

Greetings SmileKyle,
Welcome to the forum.
The Expanding Earth theory has been debated here previously, and there are some members who are proponents as well as opponents. As I am sure, that we will soon see
The tpod's linked in Whitelight's post are skeptical of the theory saying much of the evidence is explainable through electrical forces.
I for one try to keep an open mind. The fitting of the continents on a smaller globe is impressive.

A quick look at some problems I have with the Expanding Earth:

1. Where does the necessary matter come from?
It seems to me that in order to have the necessary expansion (keeping the jigsaw puzzle synchronization of the continents) the Earth must be expanding from the inside. If the accretion of material was that of meteors, cosmic debris, comets, etc then it would be accumulating on top of the continents obscuring the "fit" of the coastlines. So I think the theory requires the addition of matter internally, presumably at the core.

2. Is the matter created inside of the Earth, ex nihilo? if not where does it come from? if so, what is the physical mechanism?
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.

3. Where did all the water come from?
if you look at the original one continent Earth, as portrayed in the video, there is only land except for a few shallow seas. The Earth of today is mostly covered by water, and deep water at that. At some point there must have been a considerable quantity of water added to the Earth's surface, where did it come from?

4. Are there alternative explanations?
Could the breakup of the continents and the consequent ability to retrofit them on a smaller globe be explained by other means (Saturn Theory.) Could the Earth have had a different (pear) shape? and when the forces causing (if the Earth were close to a large gas giant or brown dwarf star) this distortion were removed the single continent split apart and the hydrosphere which was also distorted assumed the present configuration. An astounding proposal, in this article: "Geological Genesis," by Harold Tresman:

There
appears too much evidence that the radius of curvature under the
Pangaean land mass at least, did increase around the time of the break
up of Pangaea, and such an increase would itself provide the initial
force for rifting. The subsidence of a land bulge would also lower the
land relative to the sea and there is fossil evidence of wide
incursions of the sea on to the land soon after Pangaea broke
apart[51]. A change of planetary proportions from the pre-separation
pear shape, to the now rotational oblate spheroid, is in keeping with
observations above.
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/holden/iant.txt

nick c

[allynh]

So 30-35% would be dangerous indeed. Would a much higher CO2 level counteract the oxygen reaction, or perhaps the high humidity of the Earth at that time?

You have to go to the space program to see examples of high oxygen or CO2 levels. CO2 build up in Apollo 13 would have killed the crew, and 100% oxygen at higher than sea level is what caused the fire in Apollo 1.

Apollo 13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Apollo 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

In looking at links from those pages I came across this.

Controlled atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_atmosphere

A controlled atmosphere is an agricultural storage method. An atmosphere in which oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen concentrations as well as temperature and humidity are regulated.

Two major classes of commodity can be stored in controlled atmosphere.

1. Dry commodities such as grains, legumes and oilseed. In these commodities the primary aim of the atmosphere is usually to control insect pests. Most insects cannot exist indefinitely without oxygen or in conditions of raised (greater than approximately 30% carbon dioxide). Controlled atmosphere treatments of grains can be a fairly slow process taking up to several weeks at lower temperatures (less than 15°C). A typical schedule for complete disinfestation of dry grain (<13% moisture content) at about 25°C, with carbon dioxide, is a concentration above 35%(v/v) carbon dioxide (in air) for at least 15 days.[1]

These atmospheres can be created either by:

a. adding pure gases carbon dioxide or nitrogen or

b. the low oxygen exhaust of hydrocarbon combustion

c. using the natural effects of respiration (grain, moulds or insects) to reduce oxygen and increase carbon dioxide Hermetic storage[2]

2. Fresh fruits, most commonly apples and pears, where the combination of altered atmospheric conditions and reduced temperature allow prolonged storage with only a slow loss of quality.

Ha! So what they are saying is, that CO2 greater than 30% kills bugs, and I suspect most animals bigger than them as well.

[allynh]

would the electric currents entering earth possibly create a pinch around the core strong enough to transmute some of the ions in that current into heavier elements?

Up thread there are many discussion about transmuting aether as the main source of new material, and with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions transmuting simple atoms like hydrogen up into heavier atoms. Start at page 6 of the thread and follow those links.

Re: Are the planets growing?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =75#p18383

The further discussion about transmutation is on:

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 145#p20103

This is one of my posts on page 17 that talks about how the Earth looks inside.

Re: Are the planets growing?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 240#p34869

Trust me on this. Start at the beginning of the thread, follow all of the links, and all of your basic questions will be answered. It may seem like a lot of stuff to read through, but that is the point. There are no easy or quick answers to this stuff. It took me a year of working through threads and websites just to begin to understand the basics.

On page 24 I list my version 3.0 of all this stuff. That page also links to my version 2.0.

Re: Are the planets growing?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 345#p36572

When you read through all this you can see the evolution of the concepts. It's all scary as hell. Ha!

[allynh]

Hey, I'm just looking for answers. What are your thoughts?

Linda

You've started at the right place, the beginning of the thread. As I said above, work your way through all of the various threads and linked websites, your mind will be expanded. Ha!

[sureshbansal342]

again i request you all to consider my theory of biological growth of earth . my theory is very simple and easy. you just examine the birth of tree from its seed and expansion by sitting in front of a tree with bark. it is better if you select the eucalyptus young tree having bark like continents. i am sure you will get very good results.it is easy approachable and without any cost. you study the core and crust,mountain formation etc.
all living things contains fe,ni.cu.,mn,zn ......... . same our planet contains same type of minerals. this is veru much common factor of biological things with earth/planet.
formation of different different mines/pockets of different different minerals is possible in this model only.
formation of mountains is also possible in this model. when u will observe the log of tree you will see lot of knots or like mountains on the log of tree.
i have observed it from last 25 years and find mostly similarities and practical with almost all points.

[allynh]

Lunar Orbit Update

As I mentioned up thread about how the Earth and Moon are companion planets orbiting the Sun, I've checked back to the Wiki page to see how it survived the edit wars. In checking the links I found fun pages and books.

The Orbit of the Moon around the Sun is Convex!
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/tea ... onvex.html

The Moon's Orbit Around the Sun
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1912JRASC...6..117T

This is a slide show:

The Lunar Orbit Throughout Time and Space
http://lasp.colorado.edu/life/GEOL5835/ ... 19Sept.pdf

This book is from 1885 that is available on Amazon.

An elementary treatise on the lunar theory By Hugh Godfray
Google Books Result

This looks like a fun book that I'll track down as well.

Mad about Physics: Braintwisters, Paradoxes, and Curiosities -
Google Books Result

I would still like to know where the Moon was during the Saturn Event.

As someone asked during the discussion that followed, what does this have to do with GET. Stuff like this is important because if people can't accept something this simple, that has been known since Newton, then how can they accept that the ground beneath their feet is growing. Ha!

[Sparky]

allynh, thank you for your patience and answers.

I am on dial up and have limited energy to read all long threads through, especially when they go off topic as most do.

one of the links to one of your posts that had some very good info. helped me.

If you have time i would appreciate you perspective on my thread, "hutchison effect and plasma", and on my take that 911 can be explained by natural means.

thank you

[sureshbansal342]

Again i am posting my simple and clear theory.
some type of meteoroids containing amino acid and organic chemistry are seeds of planets.out of these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids . out of these germinated asteroids some can convert in big planets only and rest died in the process of growth. as one tree is a result of one seed same one planet is a result of one meteoroid only and earth is covered with thick bark. you can observe tree log of mature tree you will see mountain formation ,resin eruption as volcano.all living organ produces and need same type of minerals like fe,ni,cu.mn,zn...... etc and same contains earth also. this is a very much common factor for all living things indicate that earth is also a living organ like a tree and same type of birth also.

[remelic]

Again i am posting my simple and clear theory.
some type of meteoroids containing amino acid and organic chemistry are seeds of planets.out of these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids . out of these germinated asteroids some can convert in big planets only and rest died in the process of growth. as one tree is a result of one seed same one planet is a result of one meteoroid only and earth is covered with thick bark. you can observe tree log of mature tree you will see mountain formation ,resin eruption as volcano.all living organ produces and need same type of minerals like fe,ni,cu.mn,zn...... etc and same contains earth also. this is a very much common factor for all living things indicate that earth is also a living organ like a tree and same type of birth also.

You don't need asteroids carrying materials with an EU because electrical discharge across the surface of a planet is enough to create any and all elements needed for anything. Now that is a simple theory.

[sureshbansal342]

Theory of Earth Formation


1. Universe is like a natural forest where different-2 Planets are growing and last shrinking and dying. As in the natural forest where different-2 seeds of trees & plants are germinating and converting in big trees & plants, And after completion of their age, started shrinking & dying.

2. As in the natural forest trees produces thousands of its seeds and only few seeds can germinate and after germination few can convert in big trees only same as old cosmic bodies produce millions of Meteoroids and few Meteoroids can germinate in asteroid and out of these asteroids a very few can convert in big Planets only. Although all Meteoroids are not seed of Planets, only few Meteoroids are seeds , produced by old cosmic bodies & rest are debris of old cosmic bodies. One Planet is a result of one Meteoroid only as one tree is a result of one seed only.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj

3. As seeds contains Amino Acid and Proteins. The main properties of seed same Meteoroids (seed) contains Amino Acid & proteins.

4. Plate Tectonics is the main part of this theory. But biological process of the Earth is responsible for the motion of plates only. At some point on the log of tree You can see black plates in the red core of log of tree are pushing white crust of log toward outside extraordinary, making like mountains on log of tree. Same Plates in the Earth formed Mountains. Please see the attached link for more clarification.

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j

5. Minerals available on Earth or we can say mineral produced by Earth are also produced by all living things. I mean Iron, Zn, CU, Ni, etc. Are produced by all living thing by biological process. This is very much common factor for all living things including Planets. If Earth is a just ball of rocks only then It can not produced different-2 minerals like all other living things even if it can produce different-2 minerals it can not deposit its mineral in different-2 mines that actually we have. It will become alloys when reaching in different-2 mines. These different-2 pockets of minerals are possible only if Earth is a living thing only. (Intelligent Point )

6. As tree has bark around it same Earth is also covered with bark. Continents are part of bark of Earth. When log of tree increases in girth its bark starts cracking and separating. Same Continents starts cracking when Earth started growing and expanding. There are lots of points on continents clearly indicating that at earlier stage of Earth they have separated from each other.

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj



7. As resin erupting from log of tree same volcano are erupting from Earth.

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j

8. Log of tree contains core and crust as per attached link same Earth has core and crust. As red core of tree is hard and termite cannot eat easily same core of Earth is so hard that we can not dig it easily.

http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj


9. This is the complete mechanism of Planet from Meteoroids to Asteroid and Asteroid to Planet. As same from seed to small germinated plant and from germinated plant to big tree.

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj

10. Summary: Planets are living thing like Tree and Plants & taking birth from seeds (Meteoroids) & having biological growth. Here universe is a soil where there Meteoroids are germinating & converting in Planets.



Author:

Suresh Bansal
Sureshbansal342@gmail.com
JUST BELIEVE IN YOURSELF

[sureshbansal342]

Is there really more matter? Or are the atoms just farther apart due to expansion? We would not necessarily notice they had spread farther apart if we ourselves did the same. Let's say you measure an apple with a ruler and see that the apple is 3 inches in diameter. If EVERYTHING expands proportionally and at the same time, then you will not notice that the ruler, which now appears to measure the apple at exactly the same 3 inches it measured before has also expanded, along with yourself and everything around it.

If everything expands at the same rate, we would not be able to detect expansion. If everything expands, but at differing rates, then we can detect expansion in some cases. If scientists know that stars are farther away from earth than they used to be, it may mean that expansion is not uniform. Otherwise, they would not be able to detect this expansion.

If the earth once had a single continent that covered the expanse of earth, then broke apart due to earth's expansion, resulting in today's placement of the continents, then expansion has occured. Can it be that some things expand over a short enough time that we can detect the expansion while other things expand so slowly that we cannot detect their expansion?
you just observe the growth of log of mature tree having thick bark. you will get all answers of your question.

Hey, I'm just looking for answers. What are your thoughts?

Linda

Greetings SmileKyle,
Welcome to the forum.
The Expanding Earth theory has been debated here previously, and there are some members who are proponents as well as opponents. As I am sure, that we will soon see
The tpod's linked in Whitelight's post are skeptical of the theory saying much of the evidence is explainable through electrical forces.
I for one try to keep an open mind. The fitting of the continents on a smaller globe is impressive.

A quick look at some problems I have with the Expanding Earth:

1. Where does the necessary matter come from?
It seems to me that in order to have the necessary expansion (keeping the jigsaw puzzle synchronization of the continents) the Earth must be expanding from the inside. If the accretion of material was that of meteors, cosmic debris, comets, etc then it would be accumulating on top of the continents obscuring the "fit" of the coastlines. So I think the theory requires the addition of matter internally, presumably at the core.

2. Is the matter created inside of the Earth, ex nihilo? if not where does it come from? if so, what is the physical mechanism?
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.

3. Where did all the water come from?
if you look at the original one continent Earth, as portrayed in the video, there is only land except for a few shallow seas. The Earth of today is mostly covered by water, and deep water at that. At some point there must have been a considerable quantity of water added to the Earth's surface, where did it come from?

4. Are there alternative explanations?
Could the breakup of the continents and the consequent ability to retrofit them on a smaller globe be explained by other means (Saturn Theory.) Could the Earth have had a different (pear) shape? and when the forces causing (if the Earth were close to a large gas giant or brown dwarf star) this distortion were removed the single continent split apart and the hydrosphere which was also distorted assumed the present configuration. An astounding proposal, in this article: "Geological Genesis," by Harold Tresman:

There
appears too much evidence that the radius of curvature under the
Pangaean land mass at least, did increase around the time of the break
up of Pangaea, and such an increase would itself provide the initial
force for rifting. The subsidence of a land bulge would also lower the
land relative to the sea and there is fossil evidence of wide
incursions of the sea on to the land soon after Pangaea broke
apart[51]. A change of planetary proportions from the pre-separation
pear shape, to the now rotational oblate spheroid, is in keeping with
observations above.
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/holden/iant.txt

nick c

[sureshbansal342]

Dear ALL,
I need some information that if we take some material from top of Himalaya and other from new ocean floor. is there any gap between the age of both.

[Aristarchus]

This information has already been offered on previous posting relating to this topic, and I have read through this topic that focused on how the gravity of the Earth affected the size and the flight capabilities of very large animals, but the following link does offer what it considers the empirical basic and tenets of an expanding Earth:

The Earth is Growing and Expanding Rapidly

This map of the Earth and World Ocean Floor was created in 1977 by Bruce M. Heezen and Marie Tharp to illustrate their recently-discovered ~65,000 kilometers (~40,000 miles) of midocean ridges (MOR) that almost completely encircle the planet. A white line has been added off the Asian trench system from Kamchatka down to the Mariana Trench, where the oldest known seafloor sediments on Earth, ~195-197 Ma (million years old), were discovered in 1992 by Nakanishi, et al. This gives an approximate age of 200 Ma for today's oceans. This trench system is very significant—it fits the western coast of North America, just as the eastern coast once conjoined Europe and Africa.

However, far more significant is the trench system encompassing the right-angled Vityaz-Tonga-Kermadec Trench, New Zealand, and Macquarie Ridge that ends in a distinct eastward curvature (white rectangle). This figure-7 or fishhook-shaped configuration clearly matches the western coast of South America from the notch at 20° South Latitude to the tip at 60° South Latitude, where it curves perfectly around Cape Horn. (This Australian trench is even more remarkable because it replicates the shape of the eastern coast of South America that once conjoined Africa as part of Wegener’s Pangaea [1912]. Two nearly identical major fractures in Earth's crust is a phenomenon worth further investigation.)

This earlier connection of Asia and Australia with the Americas is also confirmed geologically by the deep ocean trenches that delineate the Andesite Line containing andesite, the primary mineral of the Andes Cordilleran mountains running the length of South America. [Carey, 1976, p.256]

The evidence is empirical and the conclusions are obvious—the Earth ~200-250 million years ago was a single planetary landmass ~40% smaller than it is today, and at that moment in geologic time there were NO OCEANS!

Every island and seamount, and most of the water In today’s ocean basins that now cover over 70% of the planet, has evolved in the very short period of 200 million years! The Earth has been, and still is, steadily growing in size and expanding in diameter at an accelerating rate—contrary to what scientists believe because they are currently unable to detect and measure this relatively slow rate of growth.

The estimates vary widely (wildly?)—from ~274 to ~55,000 tons per day [Newkirk in Meteor Orbits and Dust, NASA, 1967], but one can imagine the potential volume of accreting extraterrestrial material from the very large number of meteor streams (10 major and 374 minor, of which 154 are the most authentic) reported by Terentjeva [ibid.] She reported “Generally, the existence is accepted of several hundred minor meteor showers with a duration of not less than 3 to 7 days and an average rate not exceeding 2 meteors per hour.”

Although today the daily volume of extraterrestrial matter from space may be minuscule relative to Earth’s total mass, even one kilogram of new matter is unquestionably an addition of mass and gravitational power. This influx is well known but has been grossly underestimated and dismissed as insignificant—despite massive amounts of meteoric, geologic and organic evidence found in immense coal, oil, and limestone deposits, plus deep overburdens, on every continent and in all ocean sediments.

Some scientists may dispute the notion that additional solid matter is created from solar energy by photosynthesis in plants and other living organisms, but they should consider coal beds that were formed from trees in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) but are now buried under deep overburden that accreted later. The huge fossilized tree trunks found in the Petrified National Forest near Holbrook in eastern Arizona are additional evidence of mass from solar energy. Also consider the massive deposits of limestone created by marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.) in earlier epochs and this growth continues today. Today, piles of leaves, wood chips and fallen trees are rapidly converted to soil by nematodes. The whole question of added mass needs further research to more accurately determine the volume and sources.

I have not really made up my mind on the issue, but I also have been reading with great interest the plasma scarring of the planet offered by fellow TB members, especially from starbiter. Either way, both of these observations "exapnding planets" and "electric scarring on planets" give us scientific alternatives to challenge mainstream conceptualizations.