It was in the south.

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

It was in the south.

Unread postby JoeTB » Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:13 am

It should be a given at this point that the Earth grows, as do other planets, moons, comets, etc. The most common argument against seems to be the sophistic attempts to use dogmatic theories as evidence against observation. Or.."If we haven't invented a convoluted process to explain HOW, then it just can't be." It's a good thing we didn't start out that way.

Neal Adams doesn't seem to be versed on the electric model, but he has some interesting theories on the 'how' side of things. But his most important work is on the visualization, I think

Europa is obvious: http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip02.html

The Earth: http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

neal south.JPG

With the lack of oceans, the proper amount of gravity, and forward facing legs (as opposed to those of reptiles), dinosaurs invented the first joke millions of years ago: "Why do birds fly south for the winter?"

So what has all of this got to do with the south pole? You will notice that the south of our planet is quite a bit different than the north. Most of the spreading has occured in the south, with the buckling in the north.

Well, we have a planet nearby which has grown unevenly as well. I know that many of the marks are plasma discharge scars.. maybe the two happen together (growing and discharging), or maybe someone else can distinguish the two, but in any case, here is The Moon:

The Near Side:
Before - After
neal moon.JPG



Here is a comparison of the farside:
neal moon farside.JPG


In fact, to seal the deal, the only notable differentiated section of the farside is the section on the lower right, which would have been on the nearside on a smaller moon.

So in the case of The Moon, the difference is not mostly north/south, but facing Earth or not. And the Earth has grown in such a manner that the north looks like what would be called "the far side of something", and the south would be the nearside. But obviously there is nothing there at the moment. There must have been in the past.

I would also like to point out that things might not take as long as people think. How long has the moon been our partner? And not to try to solve too many riddles at once, but has it not grown to be in fact a very specific size?


moon eclipse.JPG


Joe3
JoeTB
Guest
 

Re: It was in the south.

Unread postby redeye » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:53 am

So what has all of this got to do with the south pole? You will notice that the south of our planet is quite a bit different than the north. Most of the spreading has occured in the south, with the buckling in the north.


This actually sounds like Mars too.

Mars

Data from Mars Global Surveyor indicates that Mars' crust is about 80 km thick in the southern hemisphere but only about 35 km thick in the north.


Mars is a little like an acorn, the bulge in the southern hemisphere means the planet wobbles on its axis like a spinning top that is slowing down.
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: It was in the south.

Unread postby rangerover777 » Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:23 am

Thanks joe3 for the presentation.
Although I’m not familiar with this theory, here are some arguments :

FOR IT :

1. If the earth is growing by spreading continents, it may explain the fact that so many
sea life fossils are found all around the globe, regardless of it’s elevation
above sea level. The theory claims that sea level use to be ½ a mile higher then now
and the sea bottom was shallow.

2. Light = Matter, at least to my belief. The visible light created by stars in the universe
by attracting space debris (due to their strong gravitational field) and then “grinding”
(by heat and pressure) it to it’s most basic form = Neutral Particle of Matter (NPM), that
(known as Proton), wrapped with orbiting North and South individual magnets (known
as electrons). The light is emitted and absorbed by organic life on earth and the organic
life eventually become minerals. I’m not sure yet how light absorbed and become mineral
W/O organic life.

3. As oppose to the Big Bang theory (sound like a good name for movie, maybe), there
is a constant transformation of matter - building up and taking apart. Also the growth
of celestial objects explain somewhat the Expanding Universe theory.

4. Naturally to planet’s and moon’s gravity, the heavier matter sink down to the core and
it may be possible that the growth happen from within to the outside. In other words
the denser matter goes down, the lighter - up, to earth crust.

COUNTER TO :

1. It does not refer to where the water came to earth, neither if the quantity of water is
changing with time.

2. The theory is ignoring earth’s gravitational forces and how these forces acts upon
the different layers of earth. Some part of earth can sink down, others rise up, and so on.

COMMENTS :

1. It would be useful to introduce into the equation thermodynamic forced and
angular momentum forces.

2. If the growth theory was more in line with a mutual transformation of matter in the
universe, it may show a bigger picture, then just isolated cases of plant’s growth.


Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: It was in the south.

Unread postby JoeTB » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:02 pm

rangerover777 wrote:Thanks joe3 for the presentation.
Although I’m not familiar with this theory, here are some arguments :

FOR IT :

1. If the earth is growing by spreading continents, it may explain the fact that so many
sea life fossils are found all around the globe, regardless of it’s elevation
above sea level. The theory claims that sea level use to be ½ a mile higher then now
and the sea bottom was shallow.

2. Light = Matter, at least to my belief. The visible light created by stars in the universe
by attracting space debris (due to their strong gravitational field) and then “grinding”
(by heat and pressure) it to it’s most basic form = Neutral Particle of Matter (NPM), that
(known as Proton), wrapped with orbiting North and South individual magnets (known
as electrons). The light is emitted and absorbed by organic life on earth and the organic
life eventually become minerals. I’m not sure yet how light absorbed and become mineral
W/O organic life.

The same way that a geode grows.

3. As oppose to the Big Bang theory (sound like a good name for movie, maybe), there
is a constant transformation of matter - building up and taking apart. Also the growth
of celestial objects explain somewhat the Expanding Universe theory.

I would call it a growing universe. I would even say that localy there is competition for space, and that a galaxy may be one in a long line of them, such as a tree in a forest. Hence, evolution. You can see the concept at work in that Earth and other planets were part of a Saturnian system.

4. Naturally to planet’s and moon’s gravity, the heavier matter sink down to the core and
it may be possible that the growth happen from within to the outside. In other words
the denser matter goes down, the lighter - up, to earth crust.


It may just be that there is empty space/plasma in the center, and that the Earth grows from the inside out, as a geode does.

COUNTER TO :

1. It does not refer to where the water came to earth, neither if the quantity of water is
changing with time.

Manufactured in the same process in the same proportions, plus it is created all of the time electrically in the atmosphere, coming to rest in the north. Also comet tails and such can bring more water.

2. The theory is ignoring earth’s gravitational forces and how these forces acts upon
the different layers of earth. Some part of earth can sink down, others rise up, and so on.

I don't see much sinking down or the possiblity of this, except near a volcano.

Accelerating 2.JPG


It is sort of obvious when you look at the age of the ocean floor by the USGS.
JoeTB
Guest
 

Re: It was in the south.

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:28 am

Konstantine Meyl believes that solar neutrinos are converted to electrons (matter) at the center of the earths fusion core reactor which fuels and explains the expansion theory. Neutrinos convert to mass universally and become matter.
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: It was in the south.

Unread postby JoeTB » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:58 pm

I'm thinking that when this configuration was in the south, there was probably a mountain of water in the south as well. Maybe this was the Apsu. Anyway, lower sea levels in the north, continents that aren't there anymore...

When this all fell apart, this itself could have caused a great flood... washing a lot lot of animals and tusks to the north.
JoeTB
Guest
 


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests