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: bboyer, MGmirkin

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by promethean » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:24 pm

Mack 71 said :
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.[/quote ]


If this internally driven expansion can continue without reaching the "exploding planet" stage of Tom VanFlandern's theory,will it be due to "blow valves" like Yellowstone ?
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Mack71 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:57 pm

Some more of those blow valves possibly,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8cJCvDn ... re=related

Very interesting radio broadcast looking at the lifting of the gulf of Mexico as well as dead shawls of fish on their coasts as well as still born dolphins they recon due to increased magma activity in the gulf. Its 2 Hrs long but a good listen with some very interesting conclusions.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:05 am

In looking at the various links I saw all of the fun links listed on the YouTube pages. I spotted this lecture by Neal Adams from the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Now realize this, after 24 years in State Government, having to suffer through up to three live lectures like this a year, I absolutely hate bad audio video. I was the poor smuck in the back handling the light switches, "Bring up the lights, bring down the lights." Yikes!

Treat this as bad internet radio and just listen. HA!

Here is the play list from the Natural Philosophy Alliance. Harvest them while you can.

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... ature=plcp

Just in case the playlist goes away, these are the links to the videos.

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ0JTdHIsX8

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tHIflG1hxA

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFgHlnRYUeY

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnA0xW-QwpA

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvq18h8Sz78

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktDwuladTa4

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgk2U7zJNfs

Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBQmqXS1sOw

All this had me check the Neal Adams links I have and they have done a complete redesign, which means most of the old Adams links are probably dead. HA!

Neal Adams
http://www.nealadams.com/

Click on the Science button to get to the Growing Earth stuff. It looks like most of his videos are now on YouTube. He has a store where you can buy the videos that used to only be available through the members site.

Fun stuff!

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:49 pm

This is interesting. The comment about them being unable to find large masses under the big "impact craters" makes the case for EDM carving of those craters. The fact that the back side is thicker than the front is another example as well. i.e. The material from the front was moved to the back.

I'm looking forward to reading the results of what they think is below the crust. Stay tuned. HA!

Tandem satellites probe the Moon's interior
http://www.nature.com/news/tandem-satel ... or-1.11419
The GRAIL mission so far has found little evidence for some hypothetical ancient impact basins.

NASA/JPL-Caltech/MIT

A sneak peek at the first results from a NASA mission to measure the Moon’s gravitational field hints at a lunar crust that is only half as thick as once thought.

There were a few gasps among scientists in the audience at a 13 September seminar at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as they took in the data revealed by Maria Zuber, principal investigator for NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission. Zuber, a planetary scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, showed a crisp, high-resolution gravitational map made with data collected by GRAIL’s twin spacecraft between March and June of this year.

“We are three to four times better in resolution compared to Kaguya and Lunar Prospector,” said Zuber, referring to two previous missions that mapped the Moon's graviational field. GRAIL’s results have not yet been published or released publicly by NASA, and Zuber was not at liberty to give an interview.

Yet her talk, and the thrilled reactions from those present at the seminar and others interviewed by Nature, suggest that GRAIL is poised to have a profound effect on scientists’ understanding of the origins and early evolution of the Moon when its results are released in the coming weeks.

GRAIL’s two probes, named Ebb and Flow by schoolchildren in a NASA competition, were launched in September 2011 (see ‘Twins to Probe Moon’s Heart’). The first probe began orbiting the Moon on 31 December 2011, with the second joining the next day. By March, they had begun detailed mapping. The two spacecraft exchange radio signals, recording fluctuations in their relative positions that are then used to reveal tiny accelerations and decelerations caused by variations in the Moon’s gravitational field. The average altitude of the primary mission was 55 kilometres — much lower than the orbit used by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a similar gravity-mapping mission for Earth that has to fly higher to avoid atmospheric friction. Occasionally, the GRAIL operations team brought the craft lower than 20 kilometres to further improve the resolution of the data. “Nothing beats flying low,” says Zuber.

Zuber gave the packed auditorium a heads-up on three science results. The first is that the Moon’s crust seems to be thinner than thought. When lunar geologists first estimated the thickness of the Moon’s crust, using data from seismometers placed by the Apollo astronauts, they concluded that it was around 60 kilometres thick. Subsequent re-analyses of those data brought the estimate down to around 45 kilometres. Now, GRAIL’s results suggest that the crust’s average thickness is only 30 kilometres, says Zuber.

That piques the interest of Linda Elkins-Tanton, a planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC. The Moon’s crust is thought to have formed when the mineral anorthosite crystallized and floated out of the ocean of magma on the body’s surface soon after it was formed out of a collision between the Earth and a giant asteroid. “The crustal thickness is an amazingly evocative clue about the origin of the Moon,” says Elkins-Tanton.

She adds that researchers are more likely to be interested in the variations in crustal thickness seen by GRAIL, because lunar scientists are already challenged in explaining why its crust is much thicker on its far side than on its near side. Given an average thickness of 30 kilometres, the crust in some regions on the near side may be unexpectedly thin, which will be particularly difficult to model.

The second finding is that there is a high correlation between variations in the Moon’s gravitational field and its topography. “This, to me, is one of the most surprising things we found,” says Zuber. The result suggests that the gravitational field of the Moon is dominated by its deep craters rather than the structure of its interior. This relationship between topography and gravity was closer for the Moon than for other terrestrial bodies such as Mars, Venus and Earth, Zuber says. “It actually makes you wonder how well we understand the other terrestrial planets.”

Bradley Jolliff, a planetary scientist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, says that this high correlation ”will spark a good bit of debate”. He adds that he also is confident that the full GRAIL data set will include some regions where the correlation is weaker — revealing important density variations in the Moon's subsurface.

Third, Zuber reported that GRAIL has not been able to confirm some of the larger and older impact basins hypothesized to exist on the Moon’s surface. Lunar scientists examining the Moon’s surface have tried to unravel the history of asteroid impacts — which would illuminate the evolution of not only the Moon but also other bodies of the inner Solar System — by defining areas where large impact basins might underlie more visible and obvious craters. But GRAIL hasn’t found many of the hypothetical basins, Zuber says.

Zuber did not discuss one key goal of GRAIL: understanding the Moon’s deep interior structure and core. Clive Neal, a lunar geologist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, says that it will take more time to make these more complicated interpretations from the data. Zuber says the data from GRAIL’s primary mission have already been processed and analysed, which puts the mission a year ahead of schedule.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by promethean » Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:41 am

This relationship between topography and gravity was closer for the Moon than for other terrestrial bodies such as Mars, Venus and Earth, Zuber says. “It actually makes you wonder how well we understand the other terrestrial planets.”

Understand ? More like "explain away". :roll:
"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?

Unread post by promethean » Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:57 am

From the planetary science board , the" Magnetic Bubbles on the Moon" thread ; is there correlation with the gravitational anomalies ? Could the moon be experiencing growth as well ? Internal charge differentials ?
"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?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:41 pm

This is an excerpt from Neal Adams pay video, but shows enough to say, yes, the moon is growing. All planets are growing.

So far as I know Neal Adams doesn't acknowledge EU. But then, the EU doesn't acknowledge Neal Adams. HA

Neal Adams - Proof! - The Moon is Growing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8

I've said all along that both the EU people and the GET people should join forces, but before they can do that, they have to first convince the other that they are not crazy. HA!

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:16 pm

I've been watching this stuff about the Younger Dryas Boundary for a while now. If you replace the plasma discharge of the Saturn Event rather than a "comet" it works better. HA!
At each site he found the same microscopic spherules, which are the diameter of a human hair and distinct in appearance. He describes their look as tiny black ball bearings with a marred surface pattern that resulted from being crystalized in a molten state and then rapidly cooled. The investigation also confirmed that the spherules were not of cosmic origin but were formed from earth materials due to an extreme impact.
This is when the current Solar System orbits formed, and the Earth grew killing off the larger animals.

Topper Site Supports Theory of Extraterrestrial Impact 12,900 Years Ago
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/article00599.html
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has tried to answer the question: did a massive comet explode over Canada 12,900 years ago, wiping out both beast and man in North America and propelling the Earth back into an Ice age?
image_599_1.jpg
An artistic expression of how a large impact might have looked (Carsten Egestal Thuesen / GEUS)
That’s a question that has been hotly debated by scientists since 2007, with the Topper archaeological site, located on the Savannah River in western Allendale County, South Carolina, right in the middle of the comet impact controversy. The new study provides further evidence that it may not be such a far-fetched notion.

In 2007, archaeologists led by Dr Richard Firestone of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found spherules of metals and nano-sized diamonds in a layer of sediment dating 12,900 years ago at 10 of 12 archaeological sites. The mix of particles is thought to be the result of an extraterrestrial object, such as a comet or meteorite, exploding in the Earth’s atmosphere. Among the sites examined was the Topper, one of the most pristine sites in the United States for research on Clovis, one of the earliest ancient peoples.

“This independent study is yet another example of how the Topper site with its various interdisciplinary studies has connected ancient human archaeology with significant studies of the Pleistocene,” said Dr Albert Goodyear, an archaeologist with University of South Carolina and co-author on the new study. “It’s both exciting and gratifying.”

Younger-Dryas is what scientists refer to as the period of extreme cooling that began around 12,900 years ago and lasted 1,300 years. While that brief Ice age has been well-documented – occurring during a period of progressive solar warming after the last Ice age – the reasons for it have long remained unclear.

Dr Firestone’s team presented a provocative theory: that a major impact event – perhaps a comet – was the catalyst. His copious sampling and detailed analysis of sediments at a layer in the earth dated to 12,900 years ago, also called the Younger-Dryas Boundary (YDB), provided evidence of micro-particles, such as iron, silica, iridium and nano-diamonds. The particles are believed to be consistent with a massive impact that could have killed off the Clovis people and the large North American animals of the day. Thirty-six species, including the mastodon, mammoth and saber-toothed tiger, went extinct.

Dr Malcolm LeCompte, a research associate professor at Elizabeth City State University and lead author of the new study, began independent study in 2008 using and further refining Dr Firestone’s sampling and sorting methods at two sites common to the three studies: Blackwater Draw in New Mexico and Topper. He also took samples at Paw Paw Cove in Maryland.

At each site he found the same microscopic spherules, which are the diameter of a human hair and distinct in appearance. He describes their look as tiny black ball bearings with a marred surface pattern that resulted from being crystalized in a molten state and then rapidly cooled. The investigation also confirmed that the spherules were not of cosmic origin but were formed from earth materials due to an extreme impact.
image_599_2.jpg
Left: Dr Tariq Ghaffar of the Public Broadcasting System’s Time Team America excavating pedestals capped by debitage at the Topper archeological site (Albert Goodyear / Meg Galliard). Right: spherules picked from the YDB layer at the Topper site (Topper), the Blackwater Draw site (BWD-D and BWD-D/C), and the Paw Paw Cove site (PPC) (Malcolm A. LeCompte et al)
“What we had at Topper and nowhere else were pieces of manufacturing debris from stone tool making by the Clovis people. Topper was an active and ancient quarry at the time,” Dr LeCompte said. “Al Goodyear was instrumental in our approach to getting samples at Topper.”

Dr Goodyear showed Dr LeCompte where the Clovis level was in order to accurately guide his sampling of sediments for the Younger Dryas Boundary layer. He advised him to sample around Clovis artifacts and then to carefully lift them to test the sediment directly underneath.

“If debris was raining down from the atmosphere, the artifacts should have acted as a shield preventing spherules from accumulating in the layer underneath. It turns out it really worked!” Dr Goodyear said. “There were up to 30 times more spherules at and just above the Clovis surface than beneath the artifacts.”

Dr LeCompte said the finding is “critical and what makes the paper and study so exciting. The other sites didn’t have artifacts because they weren’t tool-making quarries like Topper.”

“While the comet hypothesis and its possible impact on Clovis people isn’t resolved,” Dr Goodyear said. “This independent study lends greater credibility to the claim that a major impact event happened at the Younger Dryas Boundary 12,900 years ago.”

“The so-called extra-terrestrial impact hypothesis adds to the mystery of what happened at the YDB with its sudden and unexplained reversion to an ice age climate, the rapid and seemingly simultaneous loss of many Pleistocene animals, such as mammoths and mastodons, as well as the demise of what archaeologists call the Clovis culture,” Dr Goodyear said. “There’s always more to learn about the past, and Topper continues to function as a portal to these fascinating mysteries.”

_______

Bibliographic information: Malcolm A. LeCompte et al. Independent evaluation of conflicting microspherule results from different investigations of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. PNAS, published online before print September 17, 2012; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208603109

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by promethean » Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:31 pm

If you check out Jno Cook's "Saturnian Cosmology" site ,

http://www.saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php

specifically the bit about the Great Lakes ,it makes one wonder ; HOW MUCH POWER in a sustained arc-mode plasma discharge that could accomplish terra-forming on that scale ? Is it enough to power matter creation in the core and transmutation of elements in the crust ? Enough to GROW a planet ? How much of Earth's expansion is due to episodic vs. a continual process ?

I picture a star in the middle of an Earth sized geode ;
a plasma focus driving a homopolar motor ... 8-)
"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?

Unread post by allynh » Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:55 am

That was a fun link. I harvested the book in 2009 then got side tracked. There have been major changes to the book since then and I need to harvest it again, and read through the whole thing. Thanks for reminding me.

You are right, it's not about slow steady growth. All the planets are subject to punctuated growth when they are hit by massive electrical events. During the Saturn Event:

- Venus probably grew many times its initial size. Which is why it has a hot new surface, and a massive atmosphere.

- Mars grew and was massively resurfaced by EDM, losing atmosphere to the Earth when the pillar formed. Asteroids are probably all from Mars.

I suspect that the Earth was at the end of the chain of events, only increasing 10 to 15 percent, and not wiping out all life on the planet. HA!

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:40 pm

I stared highlighting bizarre passages in this article then realized that most of it would be highlighted, so I left it as is. HA!

The only way this animal could weigh 155 pounds is if the gravity were 1/12 what it is now. It is scary how reality is violated time and again in the article. [sarcasm]At least he has a computer simulation to show that he is right. [/sarcasm]

Giant Pterosaur Needed Cliffs, Downward-Sloping Runways to Taxi, Awkwardly Take Off Into Air
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132103.htm
large.jpg
A fully articulated skeleton of Quetzalcoatlus hangs in the Museum of Texas Tech University. The animal stood as tall as a giraffe and needed a slope to taxi into the air. (Credit: Texas Tech University)
ScienceDaily (Nov. 7, 2012) — It weighed about 155 pounds and had a 34-foot wingspan, close to the size of an F-16 fighter jet. A five-foot-long skull looked down from a standing height similar to that of a modern giraffe. By all measures, the ancient pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus was a Texas-sized giant of the air and created a frightening shadow as it soared across the sky.

It pushed the very boundaries of size to the brink, considered the largest flying animal yet to be discovered. Any larger, and it would have had to walk. But its bulk caused researchers to wonder how such a heavy animal with relatively flimsy wings became airborne.

Sankar Chatterjee, Horn Professor of Geosciences and curator of paleontology at the Museum of Texas Tech University, will describe the flight dynamics of this animal on November 7 during the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Charlotte, N.C.

Using a computer simulation, Chatterjee and his colleagues unraveled the secrets of the flight for the massive pterosaur, discovered in the Big Bend area of Texas, which has captured the imagination of paleontologists and public so profoundly.

"This animal probably flew like an albatross or a frigate bird in that it could soar and glide very well," Chatterjee said. "It spent most of its time in the air. But when it comes to takeoff and landing, they're so awkward that they had to run. If it were taking off from a cliff, then it was OK. But if Quetzalcoatlus were on the ground, it probably had to find a sloping area like a river bank, and then run quickly on four feet, then two to pick up enough power to get into the air. It needed an area to taxi."

Speculation exists on what this animal looked like, Chatterjee said. Some researchers suggested recently that Quetzalcoatlus could have weighed up to 550 pounds and used forelimbs as a catapult in the same manner of a common vampire bat to create a standing takeoff.

However, Chatterjee said that computer modeling proved what is possible for a tiny, lightweight, 1-ounce bat appeared impossible for an animal 10,000 times heavier.

Flight performance seems to degrade systematically with body size because power decreases with body size, he said. Above a particular size, the available power is insufficient and flapping flight is not possible. The animal would not be able to maintain height when flying at its maximum power speed and exert full power.

"Its enormous wings must have been difficult to manage," Chatterjee said. "Each wing had at least a 16-foot span, so during its full downstroke it would smash its wing resulting in crash landing. A standing takeoff of flying of such a heavy animal violates the laws of physics."

Like today's condors and other large birds, Quetzalcoatlus probably relied on updraft to remain in the air, Chatterjee said. It was a superb glider with a gliding angle close to two degrees and a cruising speed of 36 miles per hour. Their bones were entirely hollow, filled with air, lightweight and strong. This is how such a large animal could weigh so little and still grow to its enormous size.

The animal had high-aspect-ratio wings like those of modern seabirds, meaning the wings were long, narrow, flat and pointed. It soared in open airspace by exploiting thermals or wind gradient above the ocean surface. Trading for size, the wings were structurally weak for vigorous flapping, causing the pterosaur difficulty during ground takeoff.

"Sooner or later the animal would come to the ground, especially during foraging and nesting," Chatterjee said. "Like albatrosses and the Great Kori bustards, which weigh 20 to 40 pounds, ground takeoff was agonizing and embarrassing for Quetzalcoatlus. With a slight headwind and as little as a 10-degree downhill slope, an adult would be able to take off in a bipedal running start to pick up flying speed, just like a hang glider pilot. Once it got off the ground, the giant pterodactyl entered into thermal and soared like majestic masters of the air."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Texas Tech University, via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:28 am

I have observed that biology has played a major role to form the
earth.infect earth itself is a single living organism like a tree.please
observe the following explanation for this hypothesis. this hypothesis is
like a Gaia hypothesis supported by some more evidences.
1. Amino acid and Biological chemistry in chondrite meteorite.
we have found amino acid and biological chemistry inside the
chondrite meteorite. as i consider them seeds of planets. one planet is a
result of one asteroid as one tree is a result of one seed. these amino
acid and biological chemistry is a main property of any seed.
http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj
2. bark as continent; if you will observe the continents can be fit in
small globe like a puzzle game same bark can be fit in small gorth of same
log of tree.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark &
Continents
http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS
http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree
http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

3. core and crust; same as in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust
4. plate tectonic; yes i agreed with PT but at the end biological process
beneath the earth surface is responsible for the motion of plates. same PT
is happening in the log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.
http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK
5. subduction zone;same in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

6. HYDROCARBON a scientific ; this is a scientific evidence of my
hypothesis.that earth itself is a single living organism and producing
hydrocarbons like any all living organism. I believe crude oil has both
deep and organic origin . fossil oil theory is not correct. we have
observed hydrocarbons at almost whole universe including Titan. there is no
solid reason that hydrocarbons at earth has been from fossils of past life
and at rest universe with different method where no life has been observe
yet.
More over i have solved the mystery that why sediments are signatures of
presence of oil while has no involvement to produce it. this is the main
logic of fossil oil theory. infect i have solved this mystery of
petroleum. my theory is between the current biogenic and abiogenic
theories. I believe oil has both deep and organic origin like a bark oil.
Making Oil From Birch Bark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68

7. presence of same minerals like iron,nickel,moly,crome,V,MN,ZN,,,,,,,,,
etc at earth are also present in all living organism.this is very much
common factor in all living organism inculding hydrocarbons.
I have lot of these type of evidence and putting all together we can
conclude it that earth itself is a living thing that has been grown from
small asteroid

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:31 pm

This is a video mentioned in the Spiral Solar System thread. (Thanks to Native for posting.)

TRUTH! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs

The video gets some things wrong, but the essence is correct. When you trace out the path of the planets and Sun as they orbit the galaxy you do not get the consensus clockwork orbits.

- The solar system is a swarm moving together.

Here is a related video showing the way the Earth moves around the Sun. The flaw with this video is assuming the Sun is static to the galaxy.

Earth's motion around the Sun, not as simple as I thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI

When you watch the video, and see the Earth's orbit constantly changing, remember that it also moves above and below the plane of the Ecliptic.

Ecliptic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic
Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.jpg
Earths_orbit_and_ecliptic.jpg (24.54 KiB) Viewed 7292 times
Now this video is more like what I'm talking about. HA!

The helical model - our solar system is a vortex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

The only problem with the video is the conclusion of the "Vortex" rather than the "swarm" that it actually is.

BTW, in answer to "nick c" question in that thread.
nick c wrote:Does anyone have any reference that could inform as to the orientation of the ecliptic with respect to the Sun's motion through the galaxy?
The Sun's angle of rotation compared to the Galactic Plane is 67.23 degrees. The Sun's axis is also 7.25 degrees from the Ecliptic.

Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

- The video makes the mistake of showing the Sun moving in a path with the planets being dragged by the Sun.

Think of the consensus view of the solar system, with a disk through the Sun representing the plane of the Ecliptic. Now, twist that disk 67.23 degrees, run the simulation, and you would see planets moving before and after the Sun.

- You would see a swarm of planets and the Sun, rather than the smooth "comet" like image the video is proposing.

- You would see a Solar Swarm, not a Solar System. HA!

The important point of all this is for how the Team should dismantle the consensus myth of the Solar System forming from a disk of dust around a protostar. The myth requires a static model with the protostar in the center of the protoplanetary disk. When you show artist conceptions like this, then simply argue that it is wrong, you don't convince.
Protoplanetary-disk.jpg
The Team should create a video showing the reality of the Solar System as a swarm of planets moving with the sun. Then ask the obvious question of, how could a disk of gas like this form a Swarm System.

BTW, when you guys create the video, please oh please, do not have the Moon orbiting the Earth. HA!

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:53 pm

yes, planets are growing and expanding because these planets are also a single giant living organism like trees and plants. one planet is a result of one carbon ecus asteroid containg amino acid and biological chemistry (main property of any seed). as one tree is aresult of one seed same one planet is a result of one seed only.
Why planets are a single living organism like tree and plants: Earth itself is producing organic hydrocarbons in the deep origins of earth. Organic matter from surface has nothing to produce these hydrocarbons and current fossil oil theory is not correct.there is another reason that why chances are high to get oil near sediments.
Please observe what actually has been happened regarding hydrocarbons.

1. Generation of organic hydrocarbons(without involvement of any organic matter from surface of earth) in the very deep origins beneath the crust of earth.

2. Seepage of hydrocarbons

3. heavy molecular weight hydrocarbon sludge (sticky and waxy) that usually do not move has been settled near the mouth of that past seep.

4. organic matter from surface of earth and mud has been mixed in this hydrocarbon sludge and the whole mixture has been reburied .

5. this buried material is a good indicator that there was hydrocarbon seep in past near there and has been refilled over the time gap and has been converted into oil reservoir.Otherwise this organic matter from surface has nothing to produce oil as such we are getting.

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/corecrust.png/ --- Core Crust

http://img98.imageshack.us/i/mountainformation.png/ --- Mountain Formation

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.png/ --- Plate Techtonics

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/resinlava.jpg/ --- Resin Lava

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:21 pm

Oh, that is so wonderful.

Feeding Habits
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11 ... ng-habits/

This is the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Wouldn't the argument against the "nebular hypothesis" be more convincing if there was a video showing how the Solar Swarm(tm)* actually moves through space.

*I'm kidding(tm) about using the "(tm)". HA!(tm)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests