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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby pavlink » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:06 am

Earth expansion in action.

Dozens Of Large Earthquakes Strike As Speculation Mounts That Japan's Southern Island May Split
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-1 ... -may-split
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex
http://files.kostovi.com/8835e.pdf
pavlink
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby pavlink » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:30 pm

Earth's expansion is intensifying.

The Shaking Continues: The Most Dangerous Volcano In Mexico Has Erupted In Spectacular Fashion
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-2 ... ar-fashion
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex
http://files.kostovi.com/8835e.pdf
pavlink
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:14 pm

Modern geologists are fond of saying that seismic events/volcanic eruptions at distance along the Pac Rim are not related [causally], however it is of interest that when a cluster of earthquakes/eruptions does happen, they all jump on the bandwagon of trying to predict the next event!
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.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:51 am

SCI FACTS GAME
Sci Facts game is planned for tonight at 9 pm ET, 6 pm Pacific.
Location is a chatroom at http://chatzy.com/45699794196406.
Rules:
Briefly state any specific, lesser-known scientific fact.
The fact may relate to this thread topic or any other science topic.
State one fact per post.
Make as many posts as you like.
Next day, judges will decide which fact seems most important and deserves the most publicity.
The decision will be posted at the chatroom and in the thread at:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16278
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Tue May 10, 2016 1:18 pm

Now, this is just fun. HA!

Ancient bubbles in Australian rocks show early Earth's air weighed less than half today's atmosphere
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016 ... ir-weighe/
one.jpg

The layers on this stromatolite from Western Australia show evidence of single-celled, photosynthetic life on the shore of a large lake CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Chiara Palazzo, sydney

10 MAY 2016 • 4:37AM

Air bubbles trapped in 2.7 billion-year-old Australian rock suggest the Earth's atmosphere weighed less than half of today and was much thinner than previously thought.

Researchers analysed the size of air bubbles that formed at the top and bottom of lava flows along the Beasley River in Western Australia's Pilbara region almost three billion years ago and used the data to calculate the atmospheric pressure at the time. The results suggest that the air at the time exerted at most half the pressure of today's atmosphere.

The findings, published on Monday in Nature Geoscience, reverse the commonly accepted idea that the early Earth had a thicker atmosphere to compensate for sunlight being about one fifth weaker than now.

“For the longest time, people have been thinking the atmospheric pressure might have been higher back then, because the sun was fainter,” said lead author Sanjoy Som, who did the work as part of his University of Washington doctorate in Earth and space sciences. “Our result is the opposite of what we were expecting.”

According to the researchers their finding also has implications for which gases were in that atmosphere, and how biology and climate worked on the early planet.

"The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that atmospheric pressure fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognised extent," the scientists said.

Earth 2.7 billion years ago was home only to single-celled microbes, sunlight was about one-fifth weaker, and the atmosphere contained no oxygen.

The new finding however points to conditions being even more "otherworldly" than previously imagined. A lighter atmosphere could affect wind strength and other climate patterns, and would even alter the boiling point of liquids.
two.jpg

One of the lava flows analyzed in the study CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
“We’re still coming to grips with the magnitude of this,” co-author Roger Buick said. “It’s going to take us a while to digest all the possible consequences.”

Previous discoveries proved that liquid water existed on Earth at the time, in order for that to be possible the early atmosphere must have contained more heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane and less nitrogen.

The result also reinforces Prof Buick’s 2015 finding that microbes were pulling nitrogen out of Earth’s atmosphere some three billion years ago.

“The levels of nitrogen gas have varied through Earth’s history, at least in Earth’s early history, in ways that people just haven’t even thought of before,” said co-author David Catling, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. “People will need to rewrite the textbooks.”

The researchers will next look for other suitable rocks to confirm the findings and learn how atmospheric pressure might have varied through time.

While clues to the early Earth are scarce, scientists are looking outwards and studying planets outside our solar system in order to understand possible conditions and life on other planets where atmospheres might be thin and oxygen-free, like that of the early Earth.
allynh
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Io's mountains

Unread postby moonkoon » Wed May 18, 2016 4:40 pm

With about 400 active volcanoes Io is, according to Wikipedia, the most geologically active object in the Solar System. And as it has no craters (which are assumed to be impact related), the conventional interpretation is that it has been resurfaced comparatively recently. A recent story at phys.org points out that as well as volcanoes and extensive lava plains, Io also has about 100 mountains which take the form of isolated peaks of great height that jut up out of nowhere. These "pull apart" mountains are described as part of a group of "extensional" tectonic features.

The researchers postulate that the mountains are the result of a squeezing out process. It is speculated that heat induced compression, ...thermal stress, in the lower crust is the source of both the volcanic activity which vents magnesium-rich silicate magmas (liquid rock) to the surface and, if the volcanic activity is for some reason restricted, then these thermal stresses are thought to be responsible for crustal displacement processes such mountain building.

... It's not just the increasing weight of the overlying lava that puts the deep crust in compression McKinnon said, but also the increasing temperature. "Heating at depth causes the rocks to want to expand, and since there's no room to expand, you again get compressive forces," he said.

As long as the volcanoes are erupting, they carry this heat away and thermal stresses are low, reducing the likelihood of mountain formation. But if volcanism stops, the crust heats up, thermal stresses increase, and mountain formation becomes more likely. ...


Alternatively, as extensional/uplift geological activity in crustal material could conceivably result from forces produced by a sub-crustal based expansion process, it may be that these jutting mountains were the result of a more widespread inflation initiated crustal disturbance that also initiated the magma flows to the surface and the ongoing residual volcanic activity.

Note that plate tectonic/constant radius theory proposes that Earth's volcanic activity is mainly associated with plate subduction activity but this process is not given consideration in the thermal stress theory and there is no apparent visual evidence (e.g. extensive mountain ranges) for it on Io.
moonkoon
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:59 am

These guys are in for a surprise. HA!

Scientists Say They Can Recreate Living Dinosaurs Within the Next 5 Years
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/247402
Scientists Say They Can Recreate Living Dinosaurs Within the Next 5 Years
Brontosaurus

Don’t we already know how this movie’s going to end?

In a potentially terrifying case of life imitating art, the renowned paleontologist who served as the inspiration for Jurassic Park protagonist Dr. Alan Grant is spearheading genetic research that could engineer dinosaurs back into existence within the next five to 10 years, he says.

While Dr. Jack Horner, who has consulted on all four Jurassic films, initially believed the key to recreating the prehistoric creatures lied in working with ancient DNA strands, further study about DNA degradation over time has since ruled out that possibility.

Instead, a group of scientists at Harvard and Yale have turned their eye to -- wait for it -- the modern-day chicken. “Of course, birds are dinosaurs," Horner told People magazine. "So we just need to fix them so they look a little more like a dinosaur."

In an attempt to reverse evolution, the team has already made significant strides in mutating chickens back to the very creatures from which they descended. If that wasn’t enough genetic splicing and dicing, Harvard scientists attempted a similar feat recently by inserting the genes of a woolly mammoth into elephants in order to recreate the extinct beasts. Whoa baby.

If the four major differences between dinosaurs and birds are their tails, arms, hands and mouths, Horner and team have already flipped certain genetic switches in chicken embryos to reverse-engineer a bird’s beak into a dinosaur-like snout.

“Actually, the wings and hands are not as difficult,” Horner said, adding that a ‘Chickensoraus’ -- as he calls the creation -- is well on its way to becoming reality. “The tail is the biggest project. But on the other hand, we have been able to do some things recently that have given us hope that it won't take too long."

Check out Horner discussing the endeavor, among other topics, in the video below:

Jack Horner: "Jurassic World" | Talks at Google
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_qrN7Wa55w
allynh
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:22 pm

Here's another one. HA!

Surprise! Newfound Asteroid Is 'Quasi-Moon' of Earth
http://www.space.com/33185-earth-quasi- ... 6-ho3.html
It seems the moon is not Earth's only cosmic companion.

The newly discovered asteroid 2016 HO3 orbits the sun in such a way that the space rock never strays too far from Earth, making it a "quasi-satellite" of our planet, scientists say.

"One other asteroid — 2003 YN107 — followed a similar orbital pattern for a while over 10 years ago, but it has since departed our vicinity," Paul Chodas, manager of NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, said in a statement Wednesday (June 15).

"This new asteroid is much more locked onto us," Chodas added. "Our calculations indicate 2016 HO3 has been a stable quasi-satellite of Earth for almost a century, and it will continue to follow this pattern as Earth's companion for centuries to come."

Indeed, 2016 HO3 is the best example of an Earth quasi-satellite ever found, scientists said.

The asteroid was discovered on April 27 by scientists using the Pan-STARRS 1 survey telescope in Hawaii. 2016 HO3's exact size is unknown, but researchers think it's between 130 feet and 330 feet wide (40 to 100 meters).
asteroid-2016-ho3-quasi-moon copy.jpg

The newfound asteroid 2016 HO3 has an orbit around the sun that keeps it as a constant companion of Earth.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

As the space rock circles the sun, it loops around Earth as well, zooming ahead of the planet half of the time and trailing behind the other half, NASA officials said. 2016 HO3's orbit is tilted slightly relative to that of Earth, so the asteroid also bobs up and down through our planet's orbital plane.

The path of 2016 HO3 tends to twist and drift over time, but Earth's gravitational pull keeps the asteroid contained: It never comes closer than 9 million miles (14.5 million kilometers) to our planet, and it never gets more than 24 million miles (38.6 million km) away, researchers said.

"In effect, this small asteroid is caught in a little dance with Earth," Chodas said.

This dance is not dangerous: 2016 HO3 poses no threat to the planet, NASA officials said.

Follow Mike Wall on Twitter @michaeldwall and Google+. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook or Google+. Originally published on Space.com.
allynh
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby freemanjack » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:15 pm

Great post, not only are they expanding but I suspect they are all hollow save for a 'central sun' powered by the vast electrical currents involved. If Wal Thornhil is correct that gravity is an electrical property driven by the mobility of electron paths against the rigidity of nuclei creating a charge dipole of every atom, might I go one step further and suggest mass itself is an electrical property, better conceived of as 'charge density' rather than 'mass' as such. This would account for the extra 'mass' of the planet if the current is increasing. I also suspect that the respective intensity of this 'inner sun' dictates the conversion of charge density into actual matter and the nature of the matter produced depends on the intensity of the source producing it, hydrogen and helium for high intensity suns, iron, silicates and aluminium for lower orders of magnitude. Hollow because in the center of a mass all the 'gravitational' forces act outwards in all directions, if planet surfaces are 'gravitationally' bound then an equal force must be acting to hollow the center.
freemanjack
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby toni » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:31 pm

There are definitely some beautiful posts about this matter and I did not study this as intensively as some of you in the forum. I would like to add a few points if I may. Wal is not correct when he talks about gravity.
Gravity is controlling the center of compressive electrical force. Electricity works in 2 fields. They require a controller and a surveyor and balancing power. This property belongs to gravity which is invisible or spiritual. The idea is in gravity. If it wasn't so, it would be the same as saying a bridge constructed itself.
The way I see the atoms would be that protons are in gravity fields and neutrons would be in the amplitude of the wave where proton is changing its polarity and electron would be in an expanding field.
All planets, atoms too, grow to a perfect sphere and die slowly oblating - meaning expanding at the equator as Freeman explained.

Regards,
Toni
toni
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Electro » Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:32 am

The following about gravity goes along with Wal's theory:

http://franklinhu.com/NPA20GravityElectric.pdf

I'm with Jeffrey Wolynski and his General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf Stars evolve into planets in their cores (Marklund convection - Phase transitions). Stars (plasmoids) are formed from pinches between powerful electric currents, just like in the EU theory. However, in GTSM, stars do not remain externally powered. They are double-layer dissipative systems. Therefore, planets (old stars) cannot be hollow. Jupiter, and hopefully Juno will confirm this soon, has a core. And the gas is recombined plasma. The star is still very hot. That's why its radiation is so high (20 million rads).

Marklund Convection:

Image


Phase transitions within stars:

Image
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby freemanjack » Sat Jul 02, 2016 6:38 pm

Electro wrote:The following about gravity goes along with Wal's theory:

http://franklinhu.com/NPA20GravityElectric.pdf

I'm with Jeffrey Wolynski and his General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0157vC.pdf Stars evolve into planets in their cores (Marklund convection - Phase transitions). Stars (plasmoids) are formed from pinches between powerful electric currents, just like in the EU theory. However, in GTSM, stars do not remain externally powered. They are double-layer dissipative systems. Therefore, planets (old stars) cannot be hollow. Jupiter, and hopefully Juno will confirm this soon, has a core. And the gas is recombined plasma. The star is still very hot. That's why its radiation is so high (20 million rads).

Marklund Convection:

Image


Phase transitions within stars:

Image

I beg to differ, think of a spherical system with mass as its attractive component, regardless of the nature of that attractive force, if it is derived from mass it will be acting outward in all directions in the centre of a spherical object, the centre of any mass defined gravitational object has zero gravity at its centre, it is inconceivable that any planet or star could form as a solid sphere without a hollow centre under any model.
freemanjack
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:40 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Electro » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:37 pm

freemanjack wrote:I beg to differ, think of a spherical system with mass as its attractive component, regardless of the nature of that attractive force, if it is derived from mass it will be acting outward in all directions in the centre of a spherical object, the centre of any mass defined gravitational object has zero gravity at its centre, it is inconceivable that any planet or star could form as a solid sphere without a hollow centre under any model.


That's not true according to the mainstream, nor to GTSM. But hey, nobody really knows, so your guess is as good as mine. ;) :) However, I cannot imagine Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as big balls of gas (or ice crystals) with no core.

Cheers!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby toni » Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:53 am

I would like to use one example: if we watch the Electric Star movie, which is on the front page, in the timeframe of 4:25 minutes or so, we will see the picture of the sun, with 2 magnets from outside and 2 hemispheres of the sun rotating.
What I would like to point out is that each hemisphere acts like one magnet. We know that outside there are opposite poles, meaning that the inside is going to be the same. We also know that when you have 2 magnets together it is going to be impossible to have them rotating in different directions.
To correct this, both arrows will be pointing in the same direction. If you look at them from the equator, you will see that one is winded clockwise, the other counter-clockwise. This is how nature creates uphill flow. Until we start using our reasoning and due diligence process , we will never be able to comprehend the truth. When one makes a mistake with the basic mechanics, how can we trust all of the other information?
We should all utilize this process and those who make the videos should throw some respect toward us so that we would not fall asleep.

Toni
toni
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:45 pm

toni, I think you mean this video:

Electric Stars, Electric Universe | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZK0xisr4M

And this is the screen capture at 4:26 minutes.
Electric Star.jpg

If you look at the diagram, the red line is the current. The arrows showing right-hand rotation are based on the current flowing in at the poles, and flowing out at the equator.

You are thinking of the earlier screenshot of a magnetic field created by a flowing current like at 2:26 minutes.
magnetic field.jpg

If the current through the Sun flowed like that you would have a massive flow coming out one pole of the Sun, where we actually have a massive current coming out at the equator in the form of the solar wind.
allynh
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests