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

Locked
allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by allynh » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:43 pm

I just watched this Frontline episode.

Alaska Gold
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/alaska-gold/

Pebble Mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine

Pebble Partnership
http://www.pebblepartnership.com/

Prospecting the Future
http://www.pebblepartnership.com/project.php
Mineral Discovery
The Pebble prospect, located in Southwest Alaska, is one of the largest concentrations of copper, gold, molybdenum and silver in the world.

80.6 billion lbs. of copper
5.6 billion lbs. of molybdenum
107.4 million oz. of gold
Commercially significant amounts of silver, rhenium and palladium
This is a large pdf laying out the plan, including the structure of the deposit.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. Preliminary Assessment
http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ ... 202011.pdf

The concentrated amount of metals is the direct result of a massive plasma strike at that point which transmuted the crust to a mix of metals. This is one of those OMG moments that keep showing up. HA!

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by allynh » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:06 pm

More Science Fiction. HA!

UCLA scientist discovers plate tectonics on Mars
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/uc ... rss=237303
By Stuart Wolpert August 09, 2012
Mars_Plate_Tectonics.jpg
For years, many scientists had thought that plate tectonics existed nowhere in our solar system but on Earth. Now, a UCLA scientist has discovered that the geological phenomenon, which involves the movement of huge crustal plates beneath a planet's surface, also exists on Mars.

"Mars is at a primitive stage of plate tectonics. It gives us a glimpse of how the early Earth may have looked and may help us understand how plate tectonics began on Earth," said An Yin, a UCLA professor of Earth and space sciences and the sole author of the new research.

Yin made the discovery during his analysis of satellite images from THEMIS (Thermal Emission Imaging System), an instrument on board the Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and from the HIRISE (High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. He analyzed about 100 satellite images — approximately a dozen were revealing of plate tectonics.

Yin has conducted geologic research in the Himalayas and Tibet, where two of the Earth's seven major plates divide.

"When I studied the satellite images from Mars, many of the features looked very much like fault systems I have seen in the Himalayas and Tibet, and in California as well, including the geomorphology," said Yin, a planetary geologist.

For example, he saw a very smooth, flat side of a canyon wall, which can be generated only by a fault, and a steep cliff, comparable to cliffs in California's Death Valley, which also are generated by a fault. Mars has a linear volcanic zone, which Yin said is a typical product of plate tectonics.

"You don't see these features anywhere else on other planets in our solar system, other than Earth and Mars," said Yin, whose research is featured as the cover story in the August issue of the journal Lithosphere.

The surface of Mars contains the longest and deepest system of canyons in our solar system, known as Valles Marineris (Latin for Mariner Valleys and named for the Mariner 9 Mars orbiter of 1971–72, which discovered it). It is nearly 2,500 miles long — about nine times longer than the Earth's Grand Canyon. Scientists have wondered for four decades how it formed. Was it a big crack in Mars' shell that opened up?

"In the beginning, I did not expect plate tectonics, but the more I studied it, the more I realized Mars is so different from what other scientists anticipated," Yin said. "I saw that the idea that it is just a big crack that opened up is incorrect. It is really a plate boundary, with horizontal motion. That is kind of shocking, but the evidence is quite clear.

"The shell is broken and is moving horizontally over a long distance. It is very similar to the Earth's Dead Sea fault system, which has also opened up and is moving horizontally."

The two plates divided by Mars' Valles Marineris have moved approximately 93 miles horizontally relative to each other, Yin said. California's San Andreas Fault, which is over the intersection of two plates, has moved about twice as much — but the Earth is about twice the size of Mars, so Yin said they are comparable.

Yin, whose research is partly funded by the National Science Foundation, calls the two plates on Mars the Valles Marineris North and the Valles Marineris South.

"Earth has a very broken 'egg shell,' so its surface has many plates; Mars' is slightly broken and may be on the way to becoming very broken, except its pace is very slow due to its small size and, thus, less thermal energy to drive it," Yin said. "This may be the reason Mars has fewer plates than on Earth."

Mars has landslides, and Yin said a fault is shifting the landslides, moving them from their source.

Does Yin think there are Mars-quakes?

"I think so," he said. "I think the fault is probably still active, but not every day. It wakes up every once in a while, over a very long duration — perhaps every million years or more."

Yin is very confident in his findings, but mysteries remain, he said, including how far beneath the surface the plates are located.

"I don't quite understand why the plates are moving with such a large magnitude or what the rate of movement is; maybe Mars has a different form of plate tectonics," Yin said. "The rate is much slower than on Earth."

The Earth has a broken shell with seven major plates; pieces of the shell move, and one plate may move over another. Yin is doubtful that Mars has more than two plates.

"We have been able to identify only the two plates," he said. "For the other areas on Mars, I think the chances are very, very small. I don't see any other major crack."

Did the movement of Valles Marineris North and Valles Marineris South create the enormous canyons on Mars? What led to the creation of plate tectonics on Earth?

Yin, who will continue to study plate tectonics on Mars, will answer those questions in a follow-up paper that he also plans to publish in the journal Lithosphere.

UCLA is California's largest university, with an enrollment of nearly 38,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The UCLA College of Letters and Science and the university's 11 professional schools feature renowned faculty and offer 337 degree programs and majors. UCLA is a national and international leader in the breadth and quality of its academic, research, health care, cultural, continuing education and athletic programs. Six alumni and five faculty have been awarded the Nobel Prize.
This is the YouTube video where he shows his test setup.

Planetary Tectonics demonstrated by An Yin & Robin Reith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ahLnxD3GIo

All the discussions show separation, but does not show subduction. You cannot have one without the other on a static diameter planet.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by webolife » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:04 pm

The "must have subduction" parameter of your objection to a static radius earth is just as questionable now as when you first discussed it on this thread. Mountain range building with erosion [both observed and measurable]simply and sufficiently account for crust that may be spreading from rift zones. I see both as being more catastrophic than standard modelling allows. Subduction is a straw man.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

sjw40364
Guest

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by sjw40364 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:33 pm

Supposedly the earth is made of layers formed from volcanic processes deep in the earth. Supposedly we have billions of years of these layers built one upon another. Supposedly this layering is global. Supposedly this magma keeps pouring out forming concentric shells, yet the earth is not hollow by now? Just how many layers can successfully be deposited without the same amount of matter being subducted, yet the layering does not allow for subduction on that scale. The new material is not from subduction of existing material. It is from the process which forms stars and planets, Birkeland Currents confining in z-pinches which draws the plasma in from its environs. There exists enough plasma in our vicinity to power the aurora and Van Allen radiation belts.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/ ... phere.html

And likewise to account for the mass increase over the eons which enabled the size of the dinosaurs when the earth had less mass than it does now. As it now has less mass then it will over the next few billion more years. Do you actually believe that the star and planet forming process ever really stops? The universe is filled with plasma. So much so that it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies already 50% less bright because of all that dust and plasma.

http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html

Mack71
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:37 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by Mack71 » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Hi all,
I'm not sure i anyone on this thread has looked at this geological survey map before conducted by the navy and others but I find it very hard indeed to look at this map without coming up with some very serious questions.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/crustage.HTML

This map basically globally maps out the age of the seabed, youngest to oldest see if you can see a problem for the tectonics theory to stand?

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by GaryN » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:49 am

Hi Mac71,
The suspense is killing me, what is it you see?? :D
I noticed on this map though that there are sediments which seem to be up to 20 Km deep, in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Bay of Bengal for example, but that must mean there is a hole 20 Km deep, mustn't it? Deeper than the deepest trench by a long way. What makes a hole 20 Km deep?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/sedthick9.jpg
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Hoyasaur
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:03 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by Hoyasaur » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:50 am

GaryN wrote: I noticed on this map though that there are sediments which seem to be up to 20 Km deep, in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Bay of Bengal for example, but that must mean there is a hole 20 Km deep, mustn't it? Deeper than the deepest trench by a long way. What makes a hole 20 Km deep?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/sedthick9.jpg
There's no hole. It's called "crustal subsidence."

For the mechanics, take a look at the pre-Plate Tectonic concept of the "geosyncline," which is not precisely the same as the submarine fans that have developed in the Gulf of Mexico (Mississippi River) and the Bay of Bengal (Ganges), but it's close enough for government work.

Mack71
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:37 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by Mack71 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:16 am

From what i see the sea bed is at most 280 million years old while the continents are running into billions of years as well as the the fact that the land masses fit way too well on a smaller planet as well as the size of the dinosaurs four times the size of our largest animal today paleontologist argue as to whether t-rex was a plodder or a runner in the plodder camp they say hes too big to run was a scavenger and would break his neck if he turned while running while others say hey was a hunter built for speed on a planet with less gravity this could be possible. Also the point of where does the extra mass come from which very few want to tackle (understandably) but i stumbled upon an idea i liked from a scientist called Konstantin Meyl who seems adamant that the earths core is plasma based and not iron and is looking at the theory that neutrinos from the sun are feeding the core after measurements were taken that had shown that there was a 50% drop in neutrinos at night which gave rise to the idea that they where interacting with the core of the earth at some level.

I think there is far too much here to call this a crackpot idea and wash it aside, personally i think the earth and all other planets are growing and earth will one day be another gas giant and that our planet is continually in the process of creation and think that this should get as much consideration as the EU idea.

It fits too well ;) the fossils shared by countries miles apart foliage (which is in the wrong climate area for the old model) as well as dinosaur the fact that birds migrate for miles out of their way when there are countries closer that would suit which are supposedley are the ancestors of the dinosaurs which could have ran the same rout when the world was one land mass using their very long legs on the great plains of the earth(dinosaur bones are found pretty much globally where as your lizard types are usually just around the equator). The continents start to form breaking up the migratory routs weakening their numbers of these great kings of the world which lay their eggs on the ground which is not a problem if your strong in numbers but if you start letting them mammals get their foot hold in the door which by the way are excellent egg eaters.
Wallace Thornhill himself has said several times that he thought that gravity was significantly less in our past although does not subscribe to the growing earth idea but says we need to learn more about gravity to see why this is the case, Hmmm yeah too much to push aside and could fit well in the Electric Universe.
But i will look further into these sediments and the idea of subduction.

promethean
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by promethean » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:50 pm

If transmutation occurring internally causes the Earth's expansion in episodic fits and starts AND IF both EDM and elecrical deposition events are the source of the required energies ,isn't most every major geologic feature of our planet thus explained ? It appears also that varying decay rates invalidate all "established" timelines (except perhaps for extremely local comparisons ). So what is left ? "How long...HAS this been goin' on ?"
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by allynh » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:35 am

promethean wrote:"How long...HAS this been goin' on ?"
That sums up the whole thread, and all of the related threads. HA!

How fast was the process of going from quasar to galaxy to Solar system to living planetary eco system to now.

Mack71
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:37 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by Mack71 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:09 pm

1 planets fit pretty damn well on a smaller globe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyU7cyMT_k

2 gravity it seems was less in our past
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61599872/The-Gravity-Problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a1wR8bETNA
The short book The Gravity Problem has some very interesting theories with the idea that gravity was changing as mars moved back and forth toward the earth, I like this idea like a comb picking up the pieces of paper of the table after brushing your hair. I think this could fit along side the the growing earth idea?

3 ocean bed at most 280 million yrs old while continents billions of years old
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/crustage.HTML
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfaXsOnw ... re=related
Personally i think the Earth is growing as well as the acurrance of subduction, the evidence of subduction seems pretty sound.

4 mountains also extremely young compared to surrounding land
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgkm0eBGsc
A nice depiction of how mountains could form on a growing earth.

5 Intersesting insights into the problem of increaseing matter, from where?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljbyudn ... re=related

I also looked into the plasma belt idea but it seems that the satalite that detected the belt was a 1961 satalite and thus technologicaly insufficiant to carry out such a task.I have also tried locating our position within our own galaxy (with little result) and trojectory around our galaxy with the idea that perhaps we were moving through spiral arms of the galaxy?

This video`s heading is hollow earth but im looking at it more with a view of a gassius plasma core, intresting experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeMzOhoJ ... re=related

Apparentley all bodies grow on an exponential curve so the earth has been growing along time very slowley at first and said to grow to about the size of the gas giants and stop, not sure why this is yet! or of course if its true!
Cant help thinking though that the process would be accelerated by planets being in close proximity and if we did indeed have saturn, jupiter, venus and mars in line with earth then that could help accelerate such a process.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by allynh » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:07 pm

Thanks Mack71. I love the Maxlow lecture, glad to see it as a single file. Thornhill was at the same conference.

James Maxlow - Expanding Earth 2005 Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyU7cyMT_k

Here is the Larson article on his website. I have never been able to figure out Facebook so that I can access the free stuff that Scribd offers. HA!

The Gravity Problem
http://mormonprophecy.blogspot.com/2008 ... oblem.html

How the heck did they make the water sphere float like that. That is the kind of experiment the Team could be doing to model EU stuff, but using microspheres rather than tea leaves. HA!

HOLLOW EARTH THEORY PROOF EVIDENCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeMzOhoJpfw

Thanks for the links.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by allynh » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:10 pm

Looking for answers to the Yellowstone supervolcano problem is how I stumbled onto Plasma Cosmology, and Growing Earth Theory. Here is the latest series of articles.

Researchers ponder what's next in volcanic Yellowstone
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/ ... llowstone/
608801main_Minerva-Terrace-wide-04921-640x408.jpg
Some of the rocks formed by the geological activity at Yellowstone.

NASA
The Yellowstone caldera is one of the most geologically active pieces of real estate on the planet, with a high concentration of geysers, hot springs, mud volcanoes, and similar features. These features not only make Yellowstone a magnet for tourists, but they also attract the attention of geologists, who are interested in Yellowstone because it sits on top of a plume of melted mantle that has triggered titanic eruptions in the distant past. Now, two of these geologists have looked into what we know about the region in an attempt to estimate the risks for future eruptions.

A large fraction of the national park, including most of Yellowstone Lake, sits inside an ancient volcanic caldera, formed when a magma chamber blew its roof off about 640,000 years ago, releasing approximately 1,000 cubic kilometers of material in the process. An even larger eruption, about twice the size, occurred about 2 million years ago.

But volcanic activity isn't limited to these super-eruptions. The new paper reviews evidence that between 250,000 and 500,000 years ago, there were a number of smaller eruptions that would still be very significant from the perspective of anyone near Yellowstone at the time they happened. Four of these involved large flows of lava, and two others saw pyroclastic flows, mixtures of hot gas and ash. Large lava flows have also erupted between 174,000 and 70,000 years ago.

More recently, there have been a number of larger earthquakes and swarms of smaller ones, mostly associated with the refilling of the magma stores deep under the caldera or the movement of hot fluids closer to the surface.The floor of the caldera itself has also been rising, in some cases by as much as 15cm over a two-year period. This rise is layered on top of a general rebound from a kilometer-thick ice sheet that was present during the last glaciation.

All in all, the review of Yellowstone's history makes it clear that it's an incredibly complex place with lots of things that can potentially influence its future behavior. Still, the authors manage to extract a few predictions from the chaos.

In the paper, they note that the eruptions, earthquakes, and other indications of faulting cluster along three main lines: one along the western rim, one down the center of the caldera, and a third towards the east, partly underlying Yellowstone Lake. If eruptions were to resume, the authors suggest that these areas are likely to be the focus. But it's difficult to predict whether the eruptions would involve pyroclastic explosions or large lava flows. The extensive groundwater and lakes in the area could also add to the explosiveness of any eruptions.

The good news is that there's no indication that more eruptions are likely to be on the way. The magma reservoir that starts 10-20km down appears to be only partially melted, at about 5-15 percent molten material. Some areas have more shallow extensions and/or increased melt, but the maximum appears to be about 30 percent, and, the authors note, "Such melt fractions are usually too low for magma to be eruptible." So, unless there's a major influx of heat or molten material, Yellowstone should remain in its current, semi-quiescent state.

But there is bad news. An examination of the shape and composition of crystals formed in previous eruptions indicate that the molten material experienced a rapid ascent to the surface, and didn't end up sitting in pools closer to the surface before being ejected. This suggests that a recharging of the deep magma reservoir could lead to relatively rapid eruptions, and there might not be any clear sign of the magma moving towards the surface from there that would tip us off to the coming eruptions.

All of which suggests that monitoring the deep magma reservoir is probably the best way to understand what Yellowstone might be up to.

GSA Today, 2012. DOI: 10.1130/GSATG143A.1 (About DOIs).
Future volcanism at Yellowstone caldera: Insights from geochemistry of young volcanic units and monitoring of volcanic unrest
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/arch ... 22-9-4.htm

This interactive from National Geographic is pretty, but is filled with the consensus dogma.
xlarge.jpg
When Yellowstone Explodes
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/ ... nteractive

promethean
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by promethean » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:14 pm

Thanks to all EU researchers for helping us to understand our situation .I now picture our planet as containing a small star ( read: plasma focus ) steadily (or not so ) adding mass from BELOW (expansion) to accreted layers ABOVE.This increases pressure on the crust ,and forces magma up thru vents and fissures ,spreading and forming new crust.This mechanism also pushes oil and gases and water thru layers of various porosities to the surface. Simple! So here comes the scary part...
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)

promethean
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Post by promethean » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:02 pm

Recently, (somewhere) I saw an earthquake map compiling 100 plus years of magnitude 6+ events ,but I cannot find it again...
It was very dramatic visually with the epicenters all aglow. HELP !!! Anyone know of this recent map ? :?:
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests