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 Aardwolf » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:12 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Sorry I think you may need to be more specific. I don't know anyone who denies the existence of climate.


Deniers of anthropogenic climate change.... to be clear for you specifically.
Ok, then the stigma associated with individuals that are sceptical (denier is a deliberately offensive political phrase used to demonise) of ACC is purely political and/or driven by climate "scientists" fearful of the funds drying up. The science behind ACC is flimsy at best, I doubt it's even possible to differentiate any human/natural (if you want to class humans as not natural) causes at all, or even attribute any of it to rising CO2. This is different to the scientific debate behind the expanding earth / plate tectonics which is mainly held within the scientific fields, as it should be.

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Probably just an odd way you have decided to search. Looking at tigers for example their ancestors were smaller


Google:
North American animals that survived the Younger Dryas
Comparison of per younger dryas and post younger Dryas fauna
etc.

Its tough to find examples. Its all about the 'megafauna'. Sorry I can't find details of the animals that don't follow the pattern of being larger pre YD. Unfortunately your tiger example feels anecdotal. But again, open to being wrong. Just going with the flow of info I can find.
If no-one has done the research then it's difficult to support either side of the argument, all you can do is use specific anecdotal evidence (maybe the researcher realised all the animals were the same either side and gave up because it was boring and unlikely to result in any funding). You also used anecdotal evidence of humans to support your view there is some sort of discrepancy between humans and many other animals. What gives your anecdotal evidence greater weight than mine?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:51 am

Aardwolf wrote:Ok, then the stigma associated with individuals that are sceptical (denier is a deliberately offensive political phrase used to demonise) of ACC is purely political and/or driven by climate "scientists" fearful of the funds drying up.


Agreed.

Aardwolf wrote:The science behind ACC is flimsy at best, I doubt it's even possible to differentiate any human/natural (if you want to class humans as not natural) causes at all, or even attribute any of it to rising CO2.


Agreed.
- CO2 follows or lags temp change
- Alarmist bias in represented data
- Present warming began before industrial age
- Water vapor makes up 95%, (something like that), of greenhouse gasses. CO2 is negligible unless you conjure a model where everything is maxed out, held constant, and CO2 is the tipping point.

I'm not 100% certain about the above, but at present they are questions I'd like to be more certain about as reasons to question the so called 'Scientific Consensus'.

Aardwolf wrote:This is different to the scientific debate behind the expanding earth / plate tectonics which is mainly held within the scientific fields, as it should be....You also used anecdotal evidence of humans to support your view there is some sort of discrepancy between humans and many other animals. What gives your anecdotal evidence greater weight than mine?


Well I used anecdotal to indicate that while I was projecting a possible pattern of (many) animals, one singular example, (tiger), doesn't really challenge the overall correlation of the pattern. But I wasn't using the absence of accepted evidence of larger humans, (one singular data point), to disprove that pattern, (multiple data points), which would be anecdotal. I was considering reasons for why that one example, that didn't fit the pattern, may have been a deviation.

So attempting to use one single data point to disprove a pattern, is anecdotal. But accepting a pattern, and exploring reasons for why one single inconsistent data point deviates from that pattern isn't an example of anecdotal because the pattern is not challenged in that case.

I guess I didn't follow your anecdotal part. I hope that explains why I singled out your tiger line. But lets not get hung up on that semantic stuff.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:55 pm

Gravity is linear proportional to radius. Mass/volume is cubic proportional to radius of solid. Trying to correlate evidences of planet/plant/animal movement/size/structural/etc to planet radius, is a lousy approach (stated with 2 order of confidence ;) ).
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:11 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:This is different to the scientific debate behind the expanding earth / plate tectonics which is mainly held within the scientific fields, as it should be....You also used anecdotal evidence of humans to support your view there is some sort of discrepancy between humans and many other animals. What gives your anecdotal evidence greater weight than mine?


Well I used anecdotal to indicate that while I was projecting a possible pattern of (many) animals, one singular example, (tiger), doesn't really challenge the overall correlation of the pattern. But I wasn't using the absence of accepted evidence of larger humans, (one singular data point), to disprove that pattern, (multiple data points), which would be anecdotal. I was considering reasons for why that one example, that didn't fit the pattern, may have been a deviation.
Ok so I am increasingly confused about your points regarding giants. Originally you stated as part of your "trap" question;
Open Mind wrote:We need to know why there are no giant bones. I would suggest its a linchpin for acceptance of the expanding earth theory.
which suggests you cant accept EE theory until you get an answer. Now you state;
Open Mind wrote:I wasn't using the absence of accepted evidence of larger humans, (one singular data point), to disprove that pattern, (multiple data points), which would be anecdotal.
which is just an observation and no relevance to EE theory.

So are you now accepting EE theory is no longer troubled by the absence of giants?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby spark » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:12 pm

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth by Stephen Hurrell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1ls_MjxkfA

Plate Tectonics vs Expanding Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCMFzpMnZM
User avatar
spark
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:34 pm

Aardwolf wrote:So are you now accepting EE theory is no longer troubled by the absence of giants?


No. I guess I'm saying there has to be giant bone evidence, so it substantiates that many of those old articles from the past couple hundred years about giant bone findings in the mounds must be real.

But honestly, I've become heavily distracted so I might be missing a point or two here now.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:54 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:So are you now accepting EE theory is no longer troubled by the absence of giants?


No. I guess I'm saying there has to be giant bone evidence, so it substantiates that many of those old articles from the past couple hundred years about giant bone findings in the mounds must be real.
So that's just evidence to corroborate stories from a few centuries ago which has nothing to do with any EE theories. None as far as I am aware promote giant human extinction as proof of EE.

However you still said this;
Open Mind wrote:We need to know why there are no giant bones. I would suggest its a linchpin for acceptance of the expanding earth theory.
Why? Are you able to accept EE theory now we've established it has nothing to do with giant humans?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:17 am

Aardwolf wrote:Are you able to accept EE theory now we've established it has nothing to do with giant humans?


Its difficult to maintain this abstract argument, because I'm not actually trying to disprove EE theory. I really like the theory because it seems to work so well as a model to include and attempt to explain so many examples of anomalous evidence to the contrary of the standard model.

But being a proponent of EE, my motivation is to address some of the easier armchair rebuttals of EE to undermine anyone's confidence that its an easy thing to 'debunk'. So its a devil's advocate approach that directs my lines of questions.

I volunteer that the validity of the claim that the absence of giant human remains undermines the EE, is weak, and as weak as the attempt to debunk the existence of ancient advanced civilizations by citing the lack of physical evidence of 'tools', 'metals', etc. And when I say giant human remains is the 'linchpin' of substantiation of the EE theory, I mean that's the conclusion from the biased perspective of someone who is coming at this from a perspective of limited ability to be open to anything deviating from the mainstream.

So when you dive deep into the minutia of the argument, if I'm channeling the typical armchair 'debunker', it seems like a cart before the horse approach, because it asks for a serious evaluation to respond from, which will be absent from the actual audience I'm imagining will be the real representative of this particular debate as I'm attempting to frame it.

So at this point, if I keep this as simple as possible, then what I feel comfortable concluding is the following:

1) EE theory implies the earths gravity has slowly increased with the increase in size of the earth
2) If earths gravity was lower in the past, then it allows for larger animals to have existed in the past
3) If larger animals existed in the past, then larger humans also existed in the past as well
4) We do have evidence of larger animals from the ancient past
5) It therefor demands that there is evidence of larger humans from the past
6) Therefore, evidence of larger humans has been hidden or destroyed, or protected

In other words, to counter the argument of the armchair debunker when he asks "where are the giant human remains", you have only one response available to you which unfortunately puts you squarely in the "Conspiracy" camp, which is that there have been giant remains found, but they are being kept from the public eye.

And that's where you lose the value of the argument, from the perspective of the 'armchair debunker'. So I guess my point is this EE model is terminally incapable of gaining necessary support sufficient to overturn the paradigm, because for that to happen, you need more than the support of expert scientists, the subset of which are bravely open to publicly supporting the model that best and most inclusively incorporates all the available information.

And I guess I have been struggling with that and was hoping to explore what is necessary to get over that hump that could bring EE onto the table in competition with mainstream theories. And from my perspective, it boils down to actual giant human remains, which in and of itself, as a revelation, is substantiated by the fact that others too have concluded this fact, which is why perhaps all these old stories of giant bones findings have been so thoroughly kept in secret.

Can you imagine the focused limelight the EE theory would receive if merely one giant human bone was brought out to the public? I mean really giant, like implying 12-15 ft tall, well past anything that could be considered a one off circus freak show size. That's where I'm getting 'linchpin' from. Not in its value to prove or disprove, but in its effect in opening up the world to the validity of the beginning of the examination. It languishes in obscurity until that reveal in my opinion. Attempts to push it into the public eye without that evidence, I might argue would only hurt the cause rather than help it.

If there's any value in what I'm saying in your opinion, then what do you assume is the main reason for 'protecting' the world from this reality? That's the bigger question. Are there some paradigm shifts so big that they have the potential to destroy the cooperative calm necessary for society to function? The idea of starting religious wars seems conflicting with the fact that giants are mentioned in most ancient religious texts. So what is it?

Sorry if this all seems like a stupid digression. It was actually where I was going though.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:51 am

Having re read my response, I realize I didn't address your full question in the context of the discussion. I think you're position rest mainly on the fact that actual effective gravitational delta capable of supporting noticeable 'giants' forces the idea that we're talking about millions rather than thousands of years. As the historical record only allows for the existence of humans limited to the hundreds of thousands of years, human remains demonstrating gravity influenced scale is unlikely.

But I rest my presumptions on the case for delayed scale adaptation. Meaning the gravity of the earth changes at a specific rate based on the rate of expansion, but for a larger and therefore less efficient, and arguably more vulnerable scale of human to die off, it requires for the gene pool of that scale of human to be so heavily devastated that no individual populations can survive.

But I presume there have been pockets of humans in protected and stable environments, (like islands for example), that can continue to survive in ecosystems of plant and animal that all experience the same challenge to their physiology's simultaneously, (ie slower hunter hunts slower prey). I'm not suggesting 25 ft tall humans can continue to survive in huge delta's of gravity change. I'm just suggesting that the lag of their adaptation to the increasing challenge to their physiology as a result of increased gravity would be a function solely of the conditions of limitation to their exposure to outside influences in their safety and survival.

That's how I maintain that its plausible that people like Klaus Dona who suggest the existence of many remains of 25 ft tall humans have been lost. If 7 to 9 ft tall humans survived until the last ice age in America, how long did that anomalous scale of human have to survive beyond the point that they're scale actually made sense gravitationally according to the EE, 1-2 million years?
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:52 pm

This is a fun video that puts many things in scale. If there is a "cycle" as he suggests, what is the cause of that cycle.

Randall Carlson: “We are living upon the wreckage of former worlds”
https://www.dailygrail.com/2019/12/rand ... er-worlds/
Friday, December 6th

Most Grailers would be familiar with the work of Randall Carlson, a polymath whose research on the ancient world integrates sacred geometry, geology, environmental change, myths, legends, cosmic cycles and catastrophes. He is a proponent of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, and has theorized about the extinction of historical advanced human civilizations.

The video below takes the audio (and some video) from one of Randall’s lectures, and combines it with illustrations and stock video footage to bring what he’s saying to life. In the lecture Randall discusses the fact that there have been many ‘apocalyptic’ events over the last 150,000 years – the period of ‘modern humans’ – and that they appear to happen in a regular, cyclic manner.

For the reasons he outlines in the lecture, this means that we today are walking around amongst the ruins of many lost civilizations:
One of the most important insights we get from these ancient traditions is the measurement of cosmic time and how it relates to us here on earth. You’ve just got to know what to look for and where to look for it. Once you begin to become aware of it and you begin to see it you begin to realize that the cosmic fingerprints are everywhere about us, and we’re in fact living in and upon the wreckage of the former worlds.

The rubble of these former worlds is all around us but we haven’t had the scale of perspective to see it, and that’s where we’re at now. I’m completely thrilled with things like the emergence of Google Earth because Google Earth is now allowing us to just sit at our computers and see the cosmic perspective of Earth, and when you look at it from the extraterrestrial point of view things begin to show up that we don’t see when we’re right down here immersed, when it’s so close that we’re like ants walking under rubble and can’t can’t see what what’s around us.

But we do see that we literally have built our own world in our own social system on top of and out of the wreckage of former worlds


Why is There NO Record of Ancient Humans? - Randall Carlson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-d4zfovcog
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brigit Bara and 4 guests