Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

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

Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby Jetson63 » Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:28 am

Nearly everyone reading this believes in a steady-state version of the earth, where it's been the same size it's been all the time.

Why?

Which is more plausible?
Continental Drift: 3.3 Billion Years (4 1/2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWWuttntio

or
this? (10 Minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
Jetson63
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:01 am

Never had a problem with the 200million year time span ... it appears their were no oceans and Pangea covered the entire earth. If the radius has doubled then 'gravity' has increased by a factor of 2. A one of two percent increase over millions of years would be marginal. No need to speculate on Rigid Ligaments holding up the really big Dino's heads, or 50 foot wingspans during the Jurassic under this scenario.

Some questions remain:

Are we still expanding?

Did it happen in short spurts? or incrementally?

Where did all the new mass come from? Protons?
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby kevin » Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:45 am

JetSon63,

Instead of so called movement of mass consider instead how creation actually occurs.

There is continuous creation on this planet relative to a net implosion of consciousness ( plasma)
this becomes wrongly called gravity.

This net implosion over outrush is the duality of spin utilized by nature to create.

The implosion is variable over vast time spans around the overall spheroid , and this variation leads to a forgetting and a formation of extra mass and water.

This to our limited senses and time here on this planet this is wrongly thought of as movement.
I have no fancy jig saw video to demonstrate this, just the observation of nature and how this living planet expands.
Just as you did when You were conceived.

kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:14 am

What stops Earth's ejected material from escaping the Atmosphere?

Vs

Saturn ejecting Venus?
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby kevin » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:33 am

Younger Dryas wrote:What stops Earth's ejected material from escaping the Atmosphere?

Vs

Saturn ejecting Venus?



The rate of implosion over outrush, the net difference is wrongly called gravity.

Other planets /stars have different rates of this, stars are outrush positive over implosion.

I have good reason to say that this planets net implosion over outrush is 55/34.

It is all Fibonacci based.

Kevini
kevin
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:23 pm

Jetson63 wrote:Nearly everyone reading this believes in a steady-state version of the earth, where it's been the same size it's been all the time.

Why?

Which is more plausible?
Continental Drift: 3.3 Billion Years (4 1/2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWWuttntio

or
this? (10 Minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ


Actually both as per Stellar Metamorphosis, stars cool and thus shrink changing phase from plasma, to gas to liquid to solid, overall the 'world' is always shrinking, but as is posited in my paper*, the first crust that forms could be a complete shell, that "grows", actually just expands because the atmosphere is thinning, thus less pressure and the crust expands slightly. I state it very simply but there is a lot going on all at once, i think that is why the answer eluded us for so long.

*From Neptune to Earth: http://vixra.org/pdf/1801.0149v1.pdf

Regards,
Daniel

ps few minutes later, watched that contintental drift video, that is mostly nonsene, a jumbled mess of assumptions.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby toni » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:48 pm

How do we know that the videos are totally nonsense as Daniel stated?
Just knowing how electricity works!
Nature creates hemispheres, not spheres. We can see this throughout the forum. Red and blue
spirals uniting with a sphere in the center.
Uniting the equator is in the center and nothing can cross that 0 equilibrium without changing
polarity. When electricity starts to create motion from that 0 point, it must create 2 equals on both
sides. The pictures with mass and arrows crossing the equator showing energy movements are
totally incorrect for the same reason.
Wave has 2 opposite chambers - action-reaction, compression-radiation, uphill flow-downhill flow,
Nature cannot work any other way. Everything must grow to a perfect sphere, space geometry will
not allow any other way. After that point, disintegration-expansion, radiation or disappearance into
void are the names we can play with but definitely not grow. Jupiter could be 3 times its size for the
same reason.
Too many videos are creating problems and with a little knowledge, confusion can be easily avoided.
toni
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby Cargo » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:02 pm

The term 'mass' may not be appropriate in this context. Since it implies knowing how mass is created, which may be in doubt when discussing how planets are formed. Maybe the mass of one planet 'evaporates', turns into a 'cloud', and 'rains' onto another. Where did the oceans come from, if not Rain.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Steady earth size and Pangea, or ....?

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:51 am

Cargo wrote:The term 'mass' may not be appropriate in this context. Since it implies knowing how mass is created, which may be in doubt when discussing how planets are formed. Maybe the mass of one planet 'evaporates', turns into a 'cloud', and 'rains' onto another. Where did the oceans come from, if not Rain.


mass is not a thing ( it is a derived entity, DxV) so it can not be created, only matter is real, we know volumes pretty well, but densities are iffy at best, density of asteroids is totally wrong, probably for stars as well (stars are probably less massive overall) and maybe everything in between too, because densities are assumed and guestimated. Also there is no connection in standard science with the greater cosmos, ie the charge field that permeates stars and planets.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests