## 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

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

allynh wrote: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

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

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
Now this video is more like what I'm talking about. HA!

The helical model - our solar system is a vortex

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!
And so how can we visualize the cometary orbit, especially re: the steep entry angle of 2012 ISON ?
I asked on the ISON comet thread if perhaps rather than the hypothetical "Oort Cloud" could comets have a common origin with the pro-Saturnian system? We are off-topic ... ....HELP!
"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?

I think you are talking about the Brace yourselves for Comet ISON (coming 2013) thread.

I just now read through it. It looks like the main question you are asking is:
promethean wrote:I was wondering if some long period comets might be fellow travelers with the Saturnian System, perhaps sharing a common origin ( pre-supposing the Saturn arrival is "recent" ).
I think the EU guys have said that the Saturn system was captured by the Solar system. I've never seen how that is possible. Space is big, really big(HA! Couldn't resist saying that.), and the Sun is surround by a vast bubble, the Heliosphere, so I see no way for the Solar system to be a collection of other systems. Bubbles would stay separate, not merge.

- The comet is part of the debris field that fills that bubble around the Sun. It is not from some source outside the Heliosphere.

Try something simple. Go to the wiki page of any comet. Down at the bottom of the wikipage, in the "External Links", you will usually see the link to "JPL Small-Body Database Browser" for that comet.

Work through a dozen different comets watching the way the orbits move. When you are doing that, move the blue control button on the right side of the animation window to rotate the view up and down to see that they are usually not in the plane of the Ecliptic. If your monitor is big enough, you can open multiple windows, each with a different comet, and let them run, all moving at the same calendar rate, to get a sense of how many objects are swarming around the Sun.

- It's a good idea to always run multiple animations at the same time to break out of the mindset of a smooth Sun centered system.

This video will give you a rough idea of what I mean.

All The Asteroids Orbiting the Sun, in 3d

Then it is easier to see that it's a Solar Swarm, not a Solar system. HA!

BTW, When the EU guys talk about the different axial tilts of Neptune, Saturn, etc.., those angles represent the group of planets that were spit out from the Sun at various moments of electrical stress on the Sun. They represent different "generations" of planets spit out over time. Each group of planets came out as a set, moving with the Sun inside that bubble. The planets grew, destabilizing their orbits, which then caused them to fall into new configurations around the Sun, with each "generation" sharing the same axial tilt. The Saturn configuration is just the latest generation to break up.

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

HA! They say dinosaurs were "lighter than once thought". I once again started highlighting the article then stopped when it all became highlighted. This clearly shows that dinosaurs are impossible in a one gravity field.

The Paleo-Diet: Dinosaurs Lose Weight in New Study
http://news.yahoo.com/paleo-diet-dinosa ... 53384.html
The fact that bones have curves has now thrown a curveball into calculations of dinosaur weight, researchers say.
New estimates suggest dinosaurs may have been lighter than once thought, scientists explain.
With the rare exceptions of fossilized scraps of skin, feathers, bristles and other relatively soft tissues, all that remains of most extinct creatures are their skeletons. One way that investigators seek to learn more about these lost animals is to deduce their weight from their bones.

Traditionally, researchers would calculate estimates of dinosaur mass using a leg measurement such as the circumference of leg bones, understanding the relationship between body mass and this circumference in modern animals, "and scaling this up to the size of a dinosaur," said researcher Charlotte Brassey, a biomechanist at the University of Manchester in England.

For the sake of simplicity, these calculations often model leg bones as columnar beams. However, "as soon as we introduce irregularities into their shape — the lumps, bumps and curves that are typical of animal bones — then they no longer behave like columns," Brassey told LiveScience. [Gallery: Stunning Illustrations of Dinosaurs]

Dinosaur crash tests

To overcome any errors that simplifying these curved organic structures might introduce, the scientists developed complex 3-D models of leg bones from eight modern animal species — the giraffe; the white-tailed eagle; the American flamingo; the European hedgehog; the common murre, a large bird; the rock hyrax, a guinea piglike animal; the Senegal bush baby, a type of monkey; and the European polecat, a weasel-like animal.

When the researchers digitally crash-tested the bones by virtually loading stress on the ends of the bones, they found "the smallest change in the position or direction of loading induced significant amounts of bending," Brassey said.

By simplifying leg bones down to basic columns, previous studies could have underestimated the stresses experienced in animal limbs by up to 142 percent.

"We've always known that reducing bones down to simple beams was a huge simplification," Brassey said, but it was only after she created the models and compressed them "that I realized how infeasible it was."

True dinosaur mass

This raises concerns that past equations regarding fossil species, including dinosaurs, could have overestimated the maximum body weight their legs were capable of supporting.

"Unfortunately, it's not as simple as saying, 'These equations underestimate stress by 20 percent.' Instead, it depends on the underlying shape of the bone," Brassey said. "A whole-body approach to mass prediction in dinosaurs might be preferable."

When the researchers carried out such a whole-body approach to mass prediction with Giraffatitan, the giant dinosaur previously called Brachiosaurus, they came up with a body mass of 25 tons (23 metric tons), "which is quite a bit lower than some previous predictions," Brassey said. Previous mass estimates for Giraffatitan ranged from 31 to 86 tons (28 to 78 metric tons.)

"Other scientists will argue that finite element analysis remains too computationally expensive and time-consuming," Brassey said. "We appreciate this, and have also introduced improvements to the beam equations in our study for those who do not wish to use finite element analysis." (Finite element analysis is a method of breaking down a problem into many small elements that can be solved in relation to one another using complex equations.)

The findings another intriguing question: Why are bones curved in the first place?

"We've found that it massively increases stress levels when loading the bones in compression, which would be disadvantageous, yet most bones still have some degree of curvature, so evolution hasn't acted to get rid of this curvature," Brassey said.

There have been plenty of suggestions as to why the curvature is there — for instance, to pack muscles around the bones. "But we still haven't really come up with the solution yet," Brassey said.

The scientists detailed their findings online Nov. 21 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

Image Gallery: Drawing Dinosaurs
Dinosaur Detective: Find Out What You Really Know
25 Amazing Ancient Beasts
Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

They make no mention of tensegrity in that article, but it is acknowledged that just the weight of our heads would crush our vertebrae were if not for tensegrity.

JL posted here about it:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... p?f=9&t=44

Also:
In a tensegrity model as applied to biologic structures, biotensegrity, the bones of the skeleton are not considered a supporting column but compression elements enmeshed in the interstices of a highly organized tension network. The bones, including the sacrum, ‘float’ in this network much like the hub of a wire spoke cycle wheel is suspended in its tension-spoke network.

http://www.biotensegrity.com/hang_in_there.php
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

D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: Are the planets growing?

Only tensegrity is not enough.

There was a recent news article about the biggest flying dinosaur. That could under current gravity not flap its wings, it had to take off running from a hill or jump off a cliff and then float like a hangglider. A smaller earth solves this.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

allynh wrote:I think you are talking about the Brace yourselves for Comet ISON (coming 2013) thread.

I just now read through it. It looks like the main question you are asking is:
promethean wrote:I was wondering if some long period comets might be fellow travelers with the Saturnian System, perhaps sharing a common origin ( pre-supposing the Saturn arrival is "recent" ).
I think the EU guys have said that the Saturn system was captured by the Solar system. I've never seen how that is possible. Space is big, really big(HA! Couldn't resist saying that.), and the Sun is surround by a vast bubble, the Heliosphere, so I see no way for the Solar system to be a collection of other systems. Bubbles would stay separate, not merge.

- The comet is part of the debris field that fills that bubble around the Sun. It is not from some source outside the Heliosphere.

Try something simple. Go to the wiki page of any comet. Down at the bottom of the wikipage, in the "External Links", you will usually see the link to "JPL Small-Body Database Browser" for that comet.

Work through a dozen different comets watching the way the orbits move. When you are doing that, move the blue control button on the right side of the animation window to rotate the view up and down to see that they are usually not in the plane of the Ecliptic. If your monitor is big enough, you can open multiple windows, each with a different comet, and let them run, all moving at the same calendar rate, to get a sense of how many objects are swarming around the Sun.

- It's a good idea to always run multiple animations at the same time to break out of the mindset of a smooth Sun centered system.

This video will give you a rough idea of what I mean.

All The Asteroids Orbiting the Sun, in 3d

Then it is easier to see that it's a Solar Swarm, not a Solar system. HA!

BTW, When the EU guys talk about the different axial tilts of Neptune, Saturn, etc.., those angles represent the group of planets that were spit out from the Sun at various moments of electrical stress on the Sun. They represent different "generations" of planets spit out over time. Each group of planets came out as a set, moving with the Sun inside that bubble. The planets grew, destabilizing their orbits, which then caused them to fall into new configurations around the Sun, with each "generation" sharing the same axial tilt. The Saturn configuration is just the latest generation to break up.

Well, I disagree. I am pretty sure the scenario you proposed is untenable and unlikely.
I suggest the influence of extensive and interacting electrical fields in space drove our Sun's much more massive
system to attract and eventually capture a highly charged Saturnian system over a very long history,
WHICH HUMANS WITNESSED...
I refer you to Jno Cook again. He correlates periodic extinction events with a long series of Saturnian interventions...
I think Earth interactions with Saturn's Arc mode caused the Expansion episodes this thread refers to....
(we are back on topic!)
"History teaches everything,even the future." Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869)

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

@Daniel
There was a recent news article about the biggest flying dinosaur. That could under current gravity not flap its wings, it had to take off running from a hill or jump off a cliff and then float like a hangglider.
I got some cheap laughs to myself about that, imagining the evolutionary process in action, and wondering if scientists might one day find a suitable cliff with a heap of broken failures at the bottom!
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

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

GaryN wrote:I got some cheap laughs to myself about that, imagining the evolutionary process in action, and wondering if scientists might one day find a suitable cliff with a heap of broken failures at the bottom!
Yes!

That would make a great xkcd strip. HA!

Logic Boat
http://xkcd.com/1134/

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

The EU guys who are going to the conference in Albuquerque have to take this report apart. This is a clear smoking gun showing how consensus science has no clue what is going on. HA!

Grand Canyon May Be 60 Million Years Older Than Previously Thought

On the NewsHour with transcript
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/ ... 11-30.html
MARGARET WARNER: Finally tonight: Just how old is the Grand Canyon?

The conventional wisdom holds that this natural wonder of the world was shaped by the Colorado River about five or six million years ago. But there's been a long-running debate over whether it's much older. And, yesterday, researchers published a study in the journal "Science," arguing these majestic formations were formed by two much older rivers cutting through the landscape some 70 million years ago. That was during the age of the dinosaurs.

We have NewsHour science correspondent Miles O'Brien here to tell us what the debate is all about.

So, Miles, from six million to 70 million years, is that scientifically as big a gap as it appears?

MILES O’BRIEN: Yes, it's a big deal.

And there is a big debate in the scientific community right now over it, Margaret.

When you look at the Grand Canyon, as a layperson -- we have been there and see it -- you would say, well, clearly, the Colorado River formed this over many millions of years. And we know the Colorado River is between five and six million years old, no scientific debate there. There is plenty of evidence on that.

So, you would say, well, the canyon must be that old. Well, this new paper which came out -- Becky Flowers of the University of Colorado, along with Ken Farley at Caltech, took a series of readings on the eastern and western portions of the river, which measured a helium isotope which stops escaping at about 70 degrees. You can tell how the rocks have been rising out of center of the earth and sort of pinpoint where the depth would be.

And they came to the conclusion that there was a Grand Canyon there some 70 million years ago before the river. Well, how would that be?

Well, they say there were actually two rivers, one that flowed one direction 70 million years ago, another that flowed the other direction 50 million years ago, and that made a canyon, which now the Colorado River is using. Make sense?

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning what, the other river has disappeared?

MILES O’BRIEN: Pretty much.

MARGARET WARNER: In geologic time.

Now, there are some real debunkers of this.

MILES O’BRIEN: Yes, indeed, Karl Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico, who speaks on behalf of a large community of scientists who say, no, that is not true. They do believe that there were canyons there of that vintage, but was it a Grand Canyon?

So, in many senses, this might be kind of a semantic debate. But it shows you how interesting this place is to scientists.

MARGARET WARNER: First, before we get to that, can you explain in layman's terms how they came to different conclusions? In other words, are they testing different materials? Are they using different methods?

MILES O’BRIEN: There is not much debate that they got a good number on the age of the rocks and the depths of the rocks. The question is...

MARGARET WARNER: You mean on the side of the canyon?

MILES O’BRIEN: On the side of the canyon as they measured the helium isotope as it escaped. That is not the question.

The question is, was that part of a so-called Grand Canyon, or was this a predating, an older canyon, a paleo-canyon, which eventually morphed into the canyon that we see today?

So, in a way, it is a semantic debate. They are sort of both right, except that the paper which came out says, the Grand Canyon which we see today is 70 million years ago.

And that's where scientists on the other side are saying, wait a minute, there might have been some old canyons there, but it is not our Grand Canyon.

MARGARET WARNER: And on what do they base that?

MILES O’BRIEN: Well, they are basing it on this data that they have, a big mound of geologic and this isotope data, which tells them that basically the Colorado River was at the center of this canyon.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, I read that, if it were 70 million years old, in the age of dinosaurs, the landscape would have looked very different than we imagined.

MILES O’BRIEN: Yes.

Well, you know, if you go back 75 million years ago, think about it. You would have been at the beach there. You would have seen sharks in that place.

So what was going on in that part of the world 75 million to 70 million years ago was a very interesting formation, a very interesting time, where you saw something that was very low, at sea level, rise up because of the plates that are colliding together that give us the Rocky Mountains and all the tectonic activity there.

And so there was a lot happening there, if we had had the opportunity.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, and in the dinosaur era, we always think of them as having all this lush vegetation too.

MILES O’BRIEN: Well, they had a beach too. And they had -- they could have seen some sharks swimming in what is now the Grand Canyon.

MARGARET WARNER: So, back to what -- is this scientifically important or is this just fascinating because we all love the Grand Canyon?

MILES O’BRIEN: Well, yes, this is as good a place as any if you want to study the history of our planet.

You know, basically when you look at the wall of the Grand Canyon, which goes down a mile, you are reading a history book.

You just have to know how to read the rocks. And the deeper you go, the farther -- further back in time go. Two billion years, that is about half the planet right there.

So geologists love the story that they can unfold there. It tells them a lot about erosion. It tells them about tectonics, volcanism, and it gives them a glimpse into the earlier days of our planet, without having to drill a deep hole. So, it's fun.

And then there's the five million of us who like to go and just go, wow.

MARGARET WARNER: And I guess the question is, are they going to have to change the lecture and the, what do they call it, the Trail of Time or something that they have at the national...

MILES O’BRIEN: The Trail of Time just got much longer, maybe.

Karl Karlstrom says no. He's going to make sure that they don't do that. So there will be further -- I guess we can say stay tuned on this one.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET WARNER: We will stay tuned, maybe not for six million years.

(LAUGHTER)

MARGARET WARNER: Miles O'Brien, thank you.

MILES O’BRIEN: OK. Pleasure, Margaret.

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

allynh ,
I have been thinking re:axial inclinations and had a little epiphany; for a "fission" event to occur the star would have to be stressed...could it be stressed by proximity to the "neighboring" filament of the local Birkeland current
which radial fields are oriented at an angle to the "home"current. Thus resulting in varying tilts and pole alignments...?
hmmmm...

promethean said:
" I am pretty sure the scenario you proposed is untenable and unlikely. "

May I take that back ?
"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?

HA!

Way upstream I mentioned a scenario where the galaxies spit out quasars that are under high electrical stress, transmuting aether into hydrogen, growing in size. Those growing quasars start fissioning, spitting out growing stars to spread the electrical charge, to reduce the stress, turning into growing galaxies.

All the while this is happening the aether is transmuting into hydrogen inside the growing stars, where the hydrogen transmutes into heavier elements on the surface. Those heavy elements are gathered by magnetic fields inside the growing star, growing planets like pearls until the growing star is stressed by the electric charge and fissions, spitting out a string of growing planets like droplets. That string of growing planets comes out with their axes oriented together. With time that string of planets grow from the electrical stress on them, destabilizes and the string breaks apart falling into new orbits around the growing star, all the while maintaining the same axes as their "generation".

Each time the growing star is stressed, a new "generation" of growing planets are spit out when the growing star fissions to spread the electrical stress. Their common axial spin is based on how that thread of pearls came spitting out. The planets grow, destabilize the string of pearls, and fall into new orbits.

All of this, growing quasars becoming growing galaxies, becoming growing solar systems, becoming growing planets, is to spread the electrical stress among ever growing stars and planets.

That's why I don't see the Sun "capturing" other systems. Everything is too busy growing and spreading out, to have a chance to "capture" anything. HA!

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

When you look at the image they created, you can see clearly what the EU guys are saying, that the canyon was cut by EDM, not water. HA!
Holiday calendar: Satellite shows a Grander Canyon
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... der-canyon
By Alan Boyle
For years, geologists have debated just how old the Grand Canyon is, but there's no debate that the geological feature ranks among the world's top landmarks. This outer-space perspective from NASA's Terra satellite makes you realize just how monumental the American Southwest's grandest canyon is.

Was the Grand Canyon formed less than 7 million years ago? Or as long ago as 70 million years? The conventional wisdom has been that most of the canyon was cut by the Colorado River in the last 5 million to 6 million years. But last week, researchers said a new dating tool suggested that rocks from the canyon's western portion were eroded 70 million years ago, by an ancient river that ran in a direction opposite from the westward-flowing Colorado.

The claims add to a longstanding argument over the canyon's formation. In 2008, a different team of researchers concluded that the western Grand Canyon was carved out at least 16 million years ago — and that the eastern portion arose separately, due the uplift of the Colorado Plateau. In this scenario, the two sections of the Grand Canyon eventually linked up to create the awesome vista we see today.

The Terra satellite's Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, better known as ASTER, took a close look at a section of the canyon in northern Arizona last year. The perspective you see here was produced by "draping" ASTER's color data over an elevation map developed from the satellite's stereo readings. You can just make out the traces of the Grand Canyon Village's tourist facilities amid the greenish patch at upper left.

The Grand Canyon is truly one of the world's marvels, measuring up to 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) in width and 5,600 feet (1,707 meters) in depth. For even wider-angle views, check out this 2004 image from India's Resourcesat-1 satellite, as well as this image, captured in 2000 by NASA's Multi-angle Imaging Spectroradiometer. (Get out your red-blue glasses for a 3-D look.)

These views of the Grand Canyon serve as today's treat from the Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, which features a daily look at Earth from space from now until Christmas. For still more Advent calendar goodies with a cosmic twist, check out The Atlantic's Hubble Space Telescope Advent Calendar, as well as the Zooniverse Advent Calendar. And be sure to click on the links below to catch up on the pictures you've missed:
A Spacebird's-eye View of the Grand Canyon from NASA's Terra Spacecraft
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/det ... d=PIA14897

Full-Res
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA14897.jpg

Grand New View of the Canyon : Image of the Day
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76162
It is up to 18 miles (29 kilometers) wide and one mile (1.6 km) deep, and stretches 277 river miles (446 km). It is one of the greatest natural wonders of North America and perhaps the entire world. And thanks to a joint American and Japanese science team, we now have a new perspective on the Grand Canyon and many other topographic features of the planet.

The image above shows the eastern part of Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona, near 36 degrees north latitude and 112.1 degrees west longitude. It is a composite of two pieces: a synthetic natural color image captured on July 14, 2011, draped over a three-dimensional model of the area. The images and stereoscopic data behind the model were acquired by the Advanced Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA's Terra spacecraft.

The perspective is from east to west, looking down the channel of the Colorado River. North is to the right. In this view, the canyon spans 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) at its widest point and 5,600 feet (1,707 meters) from rim to river bed. The North Rim and Walhalla Plateau stand out on the right side, while Grand Canyon Village rests on the high plateau at upper left.

On October 17, 2011, NASA and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) released a significantly improved version of a digital topographic map of Earth based on data from ASTER. Known as a global digital elevation model, the map was created from stereo-pair images; that is, sets of two slightly offset two-dimensional images were merged to create the three-dimensional effect of depth.

The first version of the model was released by NASA and METI in June 2009. The 2011 version adds 260,000 stereo-pair images to improve spatial resolution, increase horizontal and vertical accuracy, and provide more realistic coverage over water bodies. ASTER uses 14 spectral bands (from visible to thermal infrared wavelengths) and spatial resolution of 15 to 90 meters (about 50 to 300 feet) to map 99 percent of Earth's landmass from 83 degrees north latitude to 83 degrees south.

“These data can be used for a broad range of applications, from planning highways and protecting lands with cultural or environmental significance, to searching for natural resources,“ said Mike Abrams, ASTER science team leader at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The map is available online to users everywhere at no cost.

References

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2011, October 17) NASA, Japan Release Improved Topographic Map of Earth. Accessed October 18, 2011.
National Park Service (2011, September 24) Grand Canyon National Park. Accessed October 18, 2011.
NASA image provided courtesy of the NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team. Caption by Michael Carlowicz and Alan Buis.

Instrument:
Terra - ASTER

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

Here's more. HA!

60-Million-Year Debate on Grand Canyon’s Age
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/scien ... versy.html
How old is the Grand Canyon? Old enough to be gazed on by dinosaurs, which died out 65 million years ago, or closer to six million years old, formed about when the earliest human ancestors began walking upright?

A bitter controversy among geologists over this question edged into the open on Thursday, when a report published in the journal Science offered new support for the old-canyon hypothesis, which is not the prevailing one. In the report, Rebecca M. Flowers of the University of Colorado and Kenneth A. Farley of the California Institute of Technology used an improved dating technique based on the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium atoms into helium atoms in a mineral known as apatite. They said this yielded a thermal record of these rocks under the canyon floor, hot at great depths but cooler the closer they were to the surface.

An analysis of the data, the geologists said, revealed where surface erosion had gouged out canyons and how much time had passed since there was significant natural excavation in the Grand Canyon region. They concluded in the report that the western segment of the canyon was carved to within a few hundred yards of modern depths by about 70 million years ago.

The more ancient origin would put much of the canyon in place in the last epoch of the dinosaurs. Publicity for the journal report duly noted that one of nature’s wonders, dinosaurs, might well have stood and gawked at another wonder, one of today’s most majestic tourist attractions.

This was only one of the immediate objections to the findings raised by geologists favoring the young-canyon school of thought. They said that the research results had been hyped. One critic, Karl E. Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico, noted that the early-canyon model had been proposed before and was “now in what I think will be a short-lived revival.”

If the interpretation of the findings proves to be correct, it contradicts the prevailing hypothesis that the entire canyon was formed as recently as five million to six million years ago, advocated by many of the notable authorities on Grand Canyon geology. These dates were drawn from an examination of pebbles and other sediments from upstream reaches of the Colorado River system that washed up at the western exit of the canyon.

Dr. Flowers said that when she started this research seven years ago, she had not expected to find the canyon’s presumed age to be so ancient. But the first set of experiments with the radioactive helium technique in 2008 was followed up with a new round of tests and more sophisticated levels of analysis.

In their paper, Dr. Flowers and Dr. Farley wrote that their findings implied a dichotomy in the late eastern and early western canyon origins. This history, they said, “supports a model in which much of Grand Canyon incision was accomplished by an ancient Cretaceous river that flowed eastward from western highlands,” not from northeast to west, as today’s Colorado River does. This was followed by a “reversal of the river’s course as topography rose in the east and collapsed in the west,” in consequence of the rising Rocky Mountains.

Dr. Flowers said in an interview that the findings supported the ancient-origin hypothesis advanced in recent years by Brian P. Wernicke, a Caltech geologist, who had proposed such a chain of events. It is still not clear when the eastern and western canyons merged into the canyon as it is seen today.

She also said she foresaw “a fair amount of controversy” over the research results. That turned out to be an understatement, even before the official publication date.

Dr. Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico is a leader among geologists who have devoted much of their careers to Grand Canyon studies. When reporters called this week, he was prepared with four pages of criticism of the new research. He pointed out that at a meeting two years ago of the most active Grand Canyon researchers, “a near consensus view was expressed” in support of the young-canyon hypothesis.

As a rule of thumb, he defined the Grand Canyon as “the canyon you see from the rim today.” How fragments of paleocanyons and paleorivers contributed to the Grand Canyon’s origin is not established, he said.

Dr. Karlstrom was not entirely negative in his assessment of the research. He praised the thermochronology method the researchers used, saying it “offers one of the few ways we may be able to reconstruct past landscapes in rocks that have long since been eroded away.” The Flowers-Farley team, he added, “is pushing welcome new advances” in this dating technology.

“Less welcome to me,” he continued, “is their attempt to push the interpretation of their new data to their limits without consideration of the whole range of other geologic data sets.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 29, 2012

An earlier version of this article misstated the direction in which the Colorado River flows. It flows from northeast to west, not from west to northeast.

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

This was another interesting PBS NOVA episode. They don't have transcripts anymore, so watch the video while it's available.

The key to remember when you watch this, is that they are discussing normal volcanoes. As bad as they are, they are firecrackers compared to Supervolcanoes like Yellowstone. HA!

Plus, watch when they show the eruptions and the lightning filling the column of ash.

Doomsday Volcanoes
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/doom ... anoes.html
In April, 2010 the eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano turned much of Europe into an ash-strewn no-fly zone, stranding millions of travelers. But was Eyjafjallajökull just the start? Now, an even more threatening Icelandic volcano, Katla, has begun to swell and grumble. Two more giants, Hekla and Laki, could erupt without warning. Iceland is a ticking time bomb: When it blows, the consequences could be global. As CGI takes us inside these geological monsters, we meet atmospheric scientists who are working to understand just how devastating an eruption could be—not just for air travel but for the global food supply and for Earth's climate. Could we be plunged into years of cold and famine? What can we do to prepare for the disaster to come?

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

### Re: Are the planets growing?

Allyn,
The article you posted about dino bone curvature showing the dinos must have weighed significantly less, and the supporting subsequent articles on tensegrity of biological [skeletal] structures, seem to me to be a blow against the changing gravity model. I've read and re-read it, and had I found the article first I might have posted it as an argument to negate your thread question. What do you think I'm missing?
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.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests