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

Locked
KeepitRealMark
Guest

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by KeepitRealMark » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:11 pm

remelic wrote:
sureshbansal342 wrote:Again i am posting my simple and clear theory.
some type of meteoroids containing amino acid and organic chemistry are seeds of planets.out of these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids . out of these germinated asteroids some can convert in big planets only and rest died in the process of growth. as one tree is a result of one seed same one planet is a result of one meteoroid only and earth is covered with thick bark. you can observe tree log of mature tree you will see mountain formation ,resin eruption as volcano.all living organ produces and need same type of minerals like fe,ni,cu.mn,zn...... etc and same contains earth also. this is a very much common factor for all living things indicate that earth is also a living organ like a tree and same type of birth also.
You don't need asteroids carrying materials with an EU because electrical discharge across the surface of a planet is enough to create any and all elements needed for anything. Now that is a simple theory. ;)

Hi remelic

You have a simple theory that I completely agree with.
Water is just one element produced here on Earth.
Water is the cause for the expansion of earth.
Earth is not like a living tree.
Earth does not have bark.
Earth’s surface is rock, made from cooled down magma.
Covered with Dirt... made from millions of years of rotting plant life.
Keep it simple.
Keep It REAL

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:37 pm

Aristarchus wrote: I have not really made up my mind on the issue, but I also have been reading with great interest the plasma scarring of the planet offered by fellow TB members, especially from starbiter. Either way, both of these observations "exapnding planets" and "electric scarring on planets" give us scientific alternatives to challenge mainstream conceptualizations.
Oh, yes. Starbiter's concept fits perfectly with shaping the surface as it grows. It explains many of the surface features that we see today. I was posting in his thread near the beginning then we moved the GET stuff to this thread to avoid jumbling up his discussion. Start with the entry on page 3 and follow until we moved back to this thread on page 13.

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process? - page 3
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =30#p30221

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process? - page 13
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 180#p31094

Tons of fun stuff.

The Earth is Growing and Expanding Rapidly site is one of the many ones that are linked to in this thread. Read through it and as many of the other sites as you can to see the fun competing models.

The Earth grows primarily from the inside out, with transmutation events like what starbiter describes shaping and changing the surface, with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions changing the material throughout the planet. LENR transmutes the air, raining out silicon, sulphur, iron, etc..., each time the lightning flashes. Electrical currents flowing through the crust constantly transmute material making coal, oil, etc...

Electricity is flowing through everything. If we could see in the different energy frequencies we would see everything alive and glowing with current.
light.jpg
sureshbansal342, your metaphor of planet growth is basically sound. What you are describing is basically what GET is all about. I just don't know how small any "seed" can be. The smallest planet has to maintain a fairly plastic shell or it will explode under the pressure of new material being added. It's possible that the Shoemaker-Levy Comet blew up because it was too small to be plastic and grow.

The example I gave up thread was the Earth growing like a fruit, my cantaloupe/grapefruit/orange/tangerine model. That is way up on page 13.

Re: Are the planets growing? - page 13
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 180#p33659

I mentioned it again on page 22 to chide people about the actual thickness of the crust/mantle.

Re: Are the planets growing? - page 22
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 315#p36236

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Speaking of the Moon Earth system as a dual planet, I found this Demonstration Project* at the Wolfram Projects site about Earth's Second Moon.

Earth's Second Moon
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/EarthsSecondMoon/
popup_2.jpg
Since prehistoric times, mankind has known about the bright object in the sky that is visible even when the Sun has risen: our Moon. However, in much more recent times we have discovered a second object, 3753 Cruithne (1986 TO), that orbits the Sun in almost exactly the same period as Earth and comes fairly close to Earth. The result of this odd set of circumstances is that, at least from certain points of view, it seems Earth has a second moon with a kidney-bean shaped orbit.
The program will download a big chunk from the server, so let it run a bit. Click the plus symbol to get to the controls, and let it run.

Watch how Cruithne moves with the Sun centered. In one view you can see that both orbit the Sun.
normal.jpg
In the "fixed Earth" view, Cruithne is orbiting near Earth.
fixed Earth.jpg
If that doesn't burn your brain, nothing will.

I still have to build one showing the Earth Moon system going around the Sun, but the concept is the same.

* Just download the free Mathematica Player so you can download and run the demonstrations.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:46 am

allynh wrote:
Aristarchus wrote: I have not really made up my mind on the issue, but I also have been reading with great interest the plasma scarring of the planet offered by fellow TB members, especially from starbiter. Either way, both of these observations "exapnding planets" and "electric scarring on planets" give us scientific alternatives to challenge mainstream conceptualizations.
Oh, yes. Starbiter's concept fits perfectly with shaping the surface as it grows. It explains many of the surface features that we see today. I was posting in his thread near the beginning then we moved the GET stuff to this thread to avoid jumbling up his discussion. Start with the entry on page 3 and follow until we moved back to this thread on page 13.

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process? - page 3
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =30#p30221

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process? - page 13
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 180#p31094

Tons of fun stuff.

The Earth is Growing and Expanding Rapidly site is one of the many ones that are linked to in this thread. Read through it and as many of the other sites as you can to see the fun competing models.

The Earth grows primarily from the inside out, with transmutation events like what starbiter describes shaping and changing the surface, with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions changing the material throughout the planet. LENR transmutes the air, raining out silicon, sulphur, iron, etc..., each time the lightning flashes. Electrical currents flowing through the crust constantly transmute material making coal, oil, etc...

Electricity is flowing through everything. If we could see in the different energy frequencies we would see everything alive and glowing with current.
light.jpg
sureshbansal342, your metaphor of planet growth is basically sound. What you are describing is basically what GET is all about. I just don't know how small any "seed" can be. The smallest planet has to maintain a fairly plastic shell or it will explode under the pressure of new material being added. It's possible that the Shoemaker-Levy Comet blew up because it was too small to be plastic and grow.

The example I gave up thread was the Earth growing like a fruit, my cantaloupe/grapefruit/orange/tangerine model. That is way up on page 13.

Re: Are the planets growing? - page 13
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 180#p33659

I mentioned it again on page 22 to chide people about the actual thickness of the crust/mantle.

Re: Are the planets growing? - page 22
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 315#p36236
Dear Allynh,
thanks for support.some type of meteoroids containing amino acid and biological chemistry are the seeds of planets from where they are converting in asteroids and some asteroids are converting in planets only.rest died in this process only.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:49 am

biological process in earth is only motor behind the motion of plates. i agree with PT but part of my theory.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:48 pm

In all the stuff about the latest major solar flare there was a link to a NOAA site that is deeply scary. Here is the FoxNews post.

Will the Earth's Wandering Magnetic Poles Cause Deadly Superstorms?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/ ... perstorms/
"Local observers called it a 300-mile-long inland sea," Ralph told FoxNews.com. The event occurred, he believes, when a series of phenomena called atmospheric rivers stalled over California. These rivers -- narrow regions of the atmosphere that move the lion's share of the world's water vapor through the atmosphere -- are quite real, and they're quite astounding.

They can stretch thousands of miles, for one thing, and move vast amounts of water, sometimes with winds of hurricane force, but focused a few thousand feet above the earth’s surface. "A typical river carries five-to-ten times the amount of water vapor than the Mississippi river carries as liquid, on average," and a big one can carry fifty times, he added. "Most flooding events in the major rivers on the West Coast are a result of atmospheric rivers creating copious rainfall," Ralph said.

Using two real storms that struck California in 1969 and 1986, a team of scientists created a computer model of what would happen were a series of atmospheric rivers to stall over the West Coast over a several week period. The results were presented on January 13 at the ARKStorm Summit.
And here is the link to the NOAA site talking about "atmospheric rivers", with key links pulled from the article.

NOAA/PSD Atmospheric River Information Page
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/
ar_examples.sm.jpg
Examples of AR events that produced extreme precipitation on the US West Coast, and exhibited spatial continuity with the tropical water vapor reservoir as seen in SSM/I satellite observations of IWV. (From Ralph et al. 2011, Mon. Wea. Rev.)

The color scale used in these images represents the total amount of water vapor between the ocean surface and space. The data are from passive microwave sensors onboard polar orbiting satellites, which measure vertically integrated water vapor (IWV), i.e., the total amount of vapor in the atmosphere from the surface to space (g/cm2).
Multi-Hazard West Coast Winter Storm Project
http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/winter-storm/

Top Ten Published Atmospheric River Events
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/events/

Publications (Hidden behind pay-wall)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/pubs/

The point is, there is an entire system for transporting massive amounts of water right above our heads, and I'd totally missed it. The EU guys need to look into this stuff and see how it fits into their models.

When you consider the absolute rage when the mainstream reacted to the news of people manipulating the weather in the Middle East, and consider ultimately being able to re-direct that much water to a target area scares the heck out of me.

Yikes!

3 January 2011
Abu Dhabi-backed scientists create fake rainstorms in $11m project
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/abu-dhab ... 71038.html

January 18, 2011
Scientists Make Dozens of Storms in the Abu Dhabi Desert?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ntroversy/

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:26 pm

Another example of large mammal that could not exist on today's one gravity Earth.

Giant ape lived alongside humans
http://dailynews.mcmaster.ca/story.cfm?id=3637
Gigantopithecus-blacki.jpg
Gigantopithecus-blacki.jpg (21.38 KiB) Viewed 13921 times
A drawing of the gigantic ape that became extinct about 100,000 years ago. Photo credit: Scientific America, Jan. 1970, pages 70-85; E.L. Simon and P.C. Ettel
A gigantic ape, measuring about 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200 pounds, co-existed alongside humans, a geochronologist has discovered.

Using a high-precision absolute-dating method (techniques involving electron spin resonance and uranium series), Jack Rink, associate professor of geography and earth sciences, at McMaster University, has determined that Gigantopithecus blackii, the largest primate that ever lived, roamed southeast Asia for nearly 700,000 years. Rink has confirmed the time range for Gigantopithecus as being from one million years ago to 300,000 years ago. This occurred during the Pleistocene period, which lasted from 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago.

"A missing piece of the puzzle has always focused on pin-pointing when Gigantopithecus existed," explains Rink. "Gigantopithecus was in the landscape with homo erectus up until 300,000 years ago, at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxi province in southern China, where the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated."

Research into Gigantopithecus blackii began in 1935, when the Dutch paleontologist G.H. von Koenigswald discovered a yellowish molar among the 'dragon bones' for sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy. Traditional Chinese medicine maintains that dragon bones, basically fossil bones and teeth, possess curative powers when the fossils are ground into a fine powder, and ingested.

For nearly 80 years, Gigantopithecus blackii has intrigued scientists, who have pieced together a description using nothing more than a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones.

"The size of these specimens - the crown of the molar, for instance, measures about an inch across - helped us understand the extraordinary size of the primate," says Rink. Sample studies further revealed that Gigantopithecus was an herbivore, feasting mainly on bamboo. Some believe that the primate's voracious appetite for bamboo ultimately placed him at the losing end of the evolutionary scale against his more nimble human competition.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:33 pm

Sorry Allynh, I just googled largest animals in the world and found several that rival or exceed the weight of Gigantor Ape, living and thriving in today's gravity.
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.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:34 pm

Dear ALL,
I NEED SOME INFORMATION THAT HOW WE KNOW THAT TEMPERATURE OF CORE IS AROUND 5500C AND HOW MUCH WE CAN RELY ON THIS FIGURE AND TEMPERATURE CALCULATING METHOD OF CORE OF EARTH.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:59 pm

sureshbansal342, the temperatures are simply guesses since we have never been to the core or sent probes past a few miles into the crust.

webolife, what am I gonna do with you. Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. At no time did you search the net and find gorillas heavier than Gigantopithecus blackii. Look at the weight of modern gorillas and explain to me why they are less than half the weight of good old Gigantopithecus blackii.

Gorilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Ph ... cteristics
Physical characteristics

Two Western Lowland Gorillas move around at Ueno Zoo.
Gorillas move around by knuckle-walking, although they sometimes walk bipedally for short distances while carrying food or in defensive situations.[12] Adult males range in height 1.65–1.75 metres (5 ft 5 in–5 ft 9 in), and in weight 140–200 kg (310–440 lb). Adult females are often half the size of a silverback, averaging about 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220 lb). Occasionally, a silverback of over 1.8 metres (5 ft 11 in) and 230 kg (510 lb) has been recorded in the wild. Obese gorillas in captivity have reached a weight of 270 kg (600 lb).[13] Gorillas have a facial structure which is described as mandibular prognathism, that is, their mandible protrudes farther out than the maxilla.

The Eastern Gorilla is more darkly colored than the Western Gorilla, with the Mountain Gorilla being the darkest of all. The Mountain Gorilla also has the thickest hair. The Western Lowland Gorilla can be brown or grayish with a reddish forehead. In addition, gorillas that live in lowland forests are more slender and agile than the more bulky Mountain Gorilla.[14]

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:04 am

allynh wrote:sureshbansal342, the temperatures are simply guesses since we have never been to the core or sent probes past a few miles into the crust.

webolife, what am I gonna do with you. Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. At no time did you search the net and find gorillas heavier than Gigantopithecus blackii. Look at the weight of modern gorillas and explain to me why they are less than half the weight of good old Gigantopithecus blackii.

Gorilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Ph ... cteristics
Physical characteristics

Two Western Lowland Gorillas move around at Ueno Zoo.
Gorillas move around by knuckle-walking, although they sometimes walk bipedally for short distances while carrying food or in defensive situations.[12] Adult males range in height 1.65–1.75 metres (5 ft 5 in–5 ft 9 in), and in weight 140–200 kg (310–440 lb). Adult females are often half the size of a silverback, averaging about 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220 lb). Occasionally, a silverback of over 1.8 metres (5 ft 11 in) and 230 kg (510 lb) has been recorded in the wild. Obese gorillas in captivity have reached a weight of 270 kg (600 lb).[13] Gorillas have a facial structure which is described as mandibular prognathism, that is, their mandible protrudes farther out than the maxilla.

The Eastern Gorilla is more darkly colored than the Western Gorilla, with the Mountain Gorilla being the darkest of all. The Mountain Gorilla also has the thickest hair. The Western Lowland Gorilla can be brown or grayish with a reddish forehead. In addition, gorillas that live in lowland forests are more slender and agile than the more bulky Mountain Gorilla.[14]
it means you have not studied my theory of earth formation. i am not comparing earth formation with apple or orange. i am comparing it with formation of tree. you compare the drift of bark of log of tree and compare it with continent drift. you compare the plate tectonic,resin eruption with magma,mountain formation and every thing you will find all results. all biological things required fe,ni,cu,mn etc.... and same our planet has. this is very much common factor for all living things. just you observe the log of tree you will be answered yourself only. just try and read my theory carefully.please try try seriously.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:06 am

sureshbansal342 wrote:
allynh wrote:sureshbansal342, the temperatures are simply guesses since we have never been to the core or sent probes past a few miles into the crust.

webolife, what am I gonna do with you. Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. At no time did you search the net and find gorillas heavier than Gigantopithecus blackii. Look at the weight of modern gorillas and explain to me why they are less than half the weight of good old Gigantopithecus blackii.

Gorilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Ph ... cteristics
Physical characteristics

Two Western Lowland Gorillas move around at Ueno Zoo.
Gorillas move around by knuckle-walking, although they sometimes walk bipedally for short distances while carrying food or in defensive situations.[12] Adult males range in height 1.65–1.75 metres (5 ft 5 in–5 ft 9 in), and in weight 140–200 kg (310–440 lb). Adult females are often half the size of a silverback, averaging about 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220 lb). Occasionally, a silverback of over 1.8 metres (5 ft 11 in) and 230 kg (510 lb) has been recorded in the wild. Obese gorillas in captivity have reached a weight of 270 kg (600 lb).[13] Gorillas have a facial structure which is described as mandibular prognathism, that is, their mandible protrudes farther out than the maxilla.

The Eastern Gorilla is more darkly colored than the Western Gorilla, with the Mountain Gorilla being the darkest of all. The Mountain Gorilla also has the thickest hair. The Western Lowland Gorilla can be brown or grayish with a reddish forehead. In addition, gorillas that live in lowland forests are more slender and agile than the more bulky Mountain Gorilla.[14]
it means you have not studied my theory of earth formation. i am not comparing earth formation with apple or orange. i am comparing it with formation of tree. you compare the drift of bark of log of tree and compare it with continent drift. you compare the plate tectonic,resin eruption with magma,mountain formation and every thing you will find all results. all biological things required fe,ni,cu,mn etc.... and same our planet has. this is very much common factor for all living things. just you observe the log of tree you will be answered yourself only. just try and read my theory carefully.please try try seriously.
reg your point of size of Gorilla pls expain me what do you want to show

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by nick c » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:47 am

hi sureshbansal342,

You seem to have your own ideas of Earth (planet) expansion. Your version is very different then what is being proposed by the EE proponents in this thread, or at least a radically different approach.

Perhaps you should open a new thread (in the NIAMI board) that deals with your particular version.

My suggestion is to start the new thread with an opening post outlining your hypothesis and its' supporting evidence and take it from there.

Nick

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:00 pm

I think I should have posted this here.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =78#p48222
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

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:08 pm

Allynh,
I don't understand your objection... surely you are not saying that while other large animals can survive in present gravity conditions, giant gorillas could not? I agree and concede from the outset that some extinct animals outmass their modern counterparts. The question is: why is this so? To use the fact that this is so as a supporting argument is circular. By contrast, genetic de-volution due to isolation and food supply issues alone would favor smaller animals following a climate-rending catastrophe on Earth, without the need for gravitational decrease. An argument that would not be circular would be one that addressed for example:
1. a demonstration that large animals [eg. elephants] function at a limiting maximum mass for current gravity
2. an indication that planets are growing elsewhere in the way that GET proposes for ours
3. a mechanism for large-scale [catastrophic] growth that explains both the extinction and survival of life on Earth
4. a testable model for what a cross section of the earth would look like [in terms of density, composition, hollowness, etc.] both before and after expansion
Please continue to understand, my own catastrophic earth history viewpoint would be strengthened by convincing answers for these issues... I want you to be right!
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.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests