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

Are the planets growing?

Unread postby SmileKyle » Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:32 pm

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=e ... wing&emb=0

Seems pretty convincing to me. What do you think?
SmileKyle
Guest
 

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby WhiteLight » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:23 pm

Hello SmileKyle & welcome

This topic has indeed been discussed on Thunderbolts here are 2 links from TPOD ....

1) http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth1.htm

2) http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth2.htm

It seems are reasonable supposition however there are problems with it eg where did all the new mass come from ?
It is true that due to constant bombardment of meteors etc that a considerable mass of new material is added to the earth yearly however this would not explain this theory.

I personally am attracted to the idea though I have no idea how it would work but it seems to me that megafauna would be easier to understand if gravity had been considerably less at some point in the past.
I'm not that techno cluey so I'm sure someone else here will explain the probs with this theory better than I. :)
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934.
Fast forward 74Yrs->yawn! :)
User avatar
WhiteLight
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:18 am
Location: Directly under the Electric Sun

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:53 pm

Greetings SmileKyle,
Welcome to the forum.
The Expanding Earth theory has been debated here previously, and there are some members who are proponents as well as opponents. As I am sure, that we will soon see :o
The tpod's linked in Whitelight's post are skeptical of the theory saying much of the evidence is explainable through electrical forces.
I for one try to keep an open mind. The fitting of the continents on a smaller globe is impressive.

A quick look at some problems I have with the Expanding Earth:

1. Where does the necessary matter come from?
It seems to me that in order to have the necessary expansion (keeping the jigsaw puzzle synchronization of the continents) the Earth must be expanding from the inside. If the accretion of material was that of meteors, cosmic debris, comets, etc then it would be accumulating on top of the continents obscuring the "fit" of the coastlines. So I think the theory requires the addition of matter internally, presumably at the core.

2. Is the matter created inside of the Earth, ex nihilo? if not where does it come from? if so, what is the physical mechanism?
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.

3. Where did all the water come from?
if you look at the original one continent Earth, as portrayed in the video, there is only land except for a few shallow seas. The Earth of today is mostly covered by water, and deep water at that. At some point there must have been a considerable quantity of water added to the Earth's surface, where did it come from?

4. Are there alternative explanations?
Could the breakup of the continents and the consequent ability to retrofit them on a smaller globe be explained by other means (Saturn Theory.) Could the Earth have had a different (pear) shape? and when the forces causing (if the Earth were close to a large gas giant or brown dwarf star) this distortion were removed the single continent split apart and the hydrosphere which was also distorted assumed the present configuration. An astounding proposal, in this article: "Geological Genesis," by Harold Tresman:
There
appears too much evidence that the radius of curvature under the
Pangaean land mass at least, did increase around the time of the break
up of Pangaea, and such an increase would itself provide the initial
force for rifting. The subsidence of a land bulge would also lower the
land relative to the sea and there is fossil evidence of wide
incursions of the sea on to the land soon after Pangaea broke
apart[51]. A change of planetary proportions from the pre-separation
pear shape, to the now rotational oblate spheroid, is in keeping with
observations above.
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/holden/iant.txt


nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby saturnine » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:29 am

There seems to be quite a bit of unexplained shape shifting in the continents in this video, notice particularly what happens to South America. I think you'd want to match up the continental shelves, not the coastlines.
saturnine
Guest
 

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:20 am

Yes the planets are growing. See here: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby bdw000 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:07 pm

nick c:
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.


I agree.

And yet, since this problem applies to THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, I feel that I have to concede the possibility.
bdw000
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby keeha » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:10 pm

Direct link to Total Science's reference: Fluid Dynamic (Aether) Sink Gravity
There is no known physical principle, no known physics law, no known physics theory, and no known physics equation which remotely suggests that planets and stars cannot gain mass via collection of sub-sub-sub atomic [quanta].
keeha
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby substance » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:54 am

bdw000 wrote:
nick c:
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.


I agree.

And yet, since this problem applies to THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, I feel that I have to concede the possibility.

We`ve already discussed that in the dinosaur thread. There is a difference between creation and expansion, though ;) Planets could grow (expand) even without new material being created, although science looks less and less precise in my view opinion and I wouldn`t be surprised at all if after all there is some means to create matter...
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
User avatar
substance
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Total Science » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:44 am

"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby bdw000 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:34 pm

substance wrote:
bdw000 wrote:
nick c:
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.


I agree.

And yet, since this problem applies to THE WHOLE UNIVERSE, I feel that I have to concede the possibility.

We`ve already discussed that in the dinosaur thread. There is a difference between creation and expansion, though ;) Planets could grow (expand) even without new material being created, although science looks less and less precise in my view opinion and I wouldn`t be surprised at all if after all there is some means to create matter...


I know of one book whose explanation is just that: EXPANSION. They say that in a hollow sphere, gravity is working from both sides of the sphere, compressing the "shell." Since a layer of material is being compresssed from both sides, it "oozes out" horizontally. But since it is a spherical shell, there's nowhere to squeeze out TO. Thus, the shell expands to accomodate. Another way to say it is that as the shell gets thinner, its surface area increases.

See chapter 6 "Gravity and the Earth" in the book THE LAND OF NO HORIZON by Kevin and Matthew Taylor

NO idea if it's right. I did not like parts of this book, but their discussion of gravity was pretty darn nifty.
bdw000
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby rennurerof » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:00 am

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... earth3.htm

"In previous Thunderbolts Picture of the Day articles about Europa, it was shown many times that electric arcs playing across Europa in swirling, wavering blooms of plasma or in huge bolts of lightning are a more satisfactory explanation for what we see. Plate Tectonics and Earth (planetary) Expansion theories are insufficient and resort to far more inscrutable mechanisms in the accomplishment of their purposes. In the Electric Universe, what we see is what we get. Ordinary processes that we can use for experimental confirmation or falsification of ideas are available to us without recourse to a universe that must make use of creation ex-nihilo and movement without mechanism."
----------

Unfortunately the above statement is not true, in that is does not correctly state the position of published Electric Universe pronouncements.

The Saturn Sun hypothesis is intimately connected with the Electric Universe. One of the main tenets in this hypothesis is that planets are created inside stars, especially brown dwarfs - i.e. creation ex-nihilo...

The connection between an Electric Universe and the creation of matter is fairly straight forward in an Electric Aether Universe. Here matter as we recognize it is actually swirls or vortexes in a gaseous sea of aether particles. The more energetic the swirl, the more compact the aether particles become as lateral sidewise vibration is translated more and more into ordered flows, thus reducing the external pressure and causing conglomerates of such swirls to be pressed together by the surrounding random vibration of the aether medium. Thus the relationship between mass, gravity, and electrical energy, and why matter creation would occur more often inside gravitationally dense bodies. Far from being a case of creation ex-nihilo, creation actually would then be occurring exactly where the aether particles and energy are the densest.

The Electric Universe and the Expanding Earth theories are not mutually antagonistic, they are actually synergistic. Take for example the Valles Marineris. Astro-physicists call the four large mountains close by - giant shield volcanoes. Electric Universe proponents call them electrical anode depositions. If the EU theory is correct, and they are the result of massive electrical currents flowing into Mars, then in a Electrical Aether Universe this concentration of electrical energy within a gravitational body should stimulate the generation of more aetheric swirls of matter. The body, Mars in this instance, would thereby grow - or expand. From a distance, the area connecting the closest anode body with the western end of the Valles Marineris looks just like an electrical blister formation on a piece of steel - one in which the metal expanded and twisted, splitting and rupturing the medium. If this electrical activity, formation of new matter, and expansion all occurred due to the near approach of another planetary body with a different electrical charge, it is certainly possible that electrically charged matter was flung out towards the other body from the rent - just as mythology has indicated.
rennurerof
Guest
 

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:45 am

hello rennurerof,
rennurerof wrote:The Saturn Sun hypothesis is intimately connected with the Electric Universe. One of the main tenets in this hypothesis is that planets are created inside stars, especially brown dwarfs - i.e. creation ex-nihilo...


Totally incorrect! My understanding of the writings of Thornhill, et al. is that such a concept is totally contrary to the EU. It is pretty clear that they do not subscribe in any way to creation "ex nihilo," or any relaxation of the physics principle that every effect must have a preceeding cause. In fact this is one of the Electric Universe's main criticisms of the big bang theory.
When mathematicians dismiss the physics principles of "every effect must have a preceding cause" and "no creation ex nihilo," we can understand why modern physics and cosmology reads like science fiction.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

As far as the birthing of planets from brown dwarf stars and smaller stars from larger stars, this does not involve the process of matter creation ex nihilo. On the contrary, this is caused by a fissioning (ie- of already existing matter) process by which the star divides into two unequal parts in order to increase surface area so as to relieve electrical stress on the original star. There is no creation of matter ex nihilo.


rennurerof wrote:The Electric Universe and the Expanding Earth theories are not mutually antagonistic, they are actually synergistic.

Perhaps, they are not mutually exclusive, in the sense that acceptance of one precludes the other. But what I wrote earlier in this thread was with regard to the Expanding Earth vis a vis the EU, and it still applies:
nick c wrote:Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.


nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby rennurerof » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:13 am

nick c wrote:Totally incorrect! "ex nihilo"


When an aether based concept is put forth for consideration in a discussion on expanding planets and or the creation of planets the use of the term 'ex nihilo' is by definition being used somewhat tongue in cheek, since in an aether based universe there is of course always 'something'. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

While your objections might be reasonable if you subscribe to an Einsteinian universe of nothingness, they do not apply in the aether based universe as described, where 'matter' at the sub-atomic and atomic levels are simply swirls of aether particles energized perhaps by electrical potentials. The aether is an acceptable proposition in the EU:

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
22 August 2008
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

"This sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:
“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]"
rennurerof
Guest
 

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:08 pm

greetings rennureof,
rennureof wrote:While your objections might be reasonable if you subscribe to an Einsteinian universe of nothingness, they do not apply in the aether based universe as described, where 'matter' at the sub-atomic and atomic levels are simply swirls of aether particles energized perhaps by electrical potentials. The aether is an acceptable proposition in the EU:

It seems to me, that you are saying
1. that aether theory permits the creation of matter, altho that is tongue in cheek, because matter is really "swirls of aether particles"
2. that Thornhill has favored an aether model so therefore the EU is compatible with matter being created in the center of stars or planets.
Correct me if I am misunderstanding.
Aether model or not, tongue in cheek or not, my own interpretation of the EU (I can only speak for myself) does not allow for there to be 'nothing' and then 'something.' Either there is matter or there is nothing. What is a 'swirl of aether particles' made of? Is it matter or not?
It seems that you are just using some fancy jargon in an attempt to slip 'creation ex nihilo' in the back door of EU theory :shock:
Again, correct me if I am off base here, I am not a physicist.

From what I am reading in the holoscience site, Wal Thornhill strictly adheres to "cause and effect" and the inviolability of matter (which is not the same as mass.)
This inexcusable philosophical muddle over matter and mass has given rise to violation of the fundamental physics principle of no creation or annihilation of matter. It has allowed a miraculous cosmological creation story to gain currency, known as the ‘big bang.’[14] Notions of ‘vacuum energy’ and of particles ‘winking in and out of existence’ in the vacuum of space are similarly miraculous. The simple fact is that we have no concept of why matter manifests with mass.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
highlight added

Imhop, from this and other statements by EU theorists (it's not a monolith, they don't agree on everything.) I conclude the following:
-matter cannot be created or destroyed
-there can be no effect without a preceeding cause
-gravity is directly related to mass, but mass is not the equivalent of matter
-we know very little about the interiors of stars and planets, conclusions derived from measurements of gravitational effects cannot tell us about the amount of matter or state of the interiors of planets and stars

I don't want to get into any debates on the aether or such, as there are plenty of [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1186&start=195]threads[/url2] in other areas of these forums where that is the topic.
If the Expanding Earth theory can be accomodated with out invoking some exotic mechanism for matter creation, that could be interesting reading. Some have suggested this, can anyone elaborate? If so, I have even more questions :D

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby rennurerof » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:18 pm

nick c wrote:"I don't want to get into any debates on the aether or such..."

"What is a 'swirl of aether particles' made of? Is it matter or not?
It seems that you are just using some fancy jargon in an attempt to slip 'creation ex nihilo' in the back door of EU theory
Again, correct me if I am off base here, I am not a physicist."

"If the Expanding Earth theory can be accomodated with out invoking some exotic mechanism for matter creation, that could be interesting reading. Some have suggested this, can anyone elaborate? If so, I have even more questions "


It could be pointed out to nick c that his statements are completely without merit but then that would require that he read what has been posted and make a slight attempt to understand it. However, he makes it very clear that he has no wish to understand the 'fancy jargon' of Lord Kelvin, Nikola Tesla, Sir Oliver Lodge, etc. because apparently in his opinion nothing they had to say on the subject is worth knowing, and furthermore he doesn't want to hear anymore about it. This attitude seems more suited to Wikipedia than the Thunderbolts forum, but to each his own.

However, for anyone else looking at this thread here's a quote from the original post:

rennureof wrote:"Thus the relationship between mass, gravity, and electrical energy, and why matter creation would occur more often inside gravitationally dense bodies. Far from being a case of creation ex-nihilo, creation actually would then be occurring exactly where the aether particles and energy are the densest."


Let me reiterate: "Far from being a case of creation ex-nihilo..."
rennurerof
Guest
 

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests