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 allynh » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:43 am

Open Mind wrote:if we're to believe the old news clippings that Jim Vieira includes in his presentations.

There's his name. I could not remember it. When you were talking about giant bones I knew that I'd seen some of his videos on YouTube. He's fun. I saw his banned TED talk and put it in a folder. That was 2013. Looking at YouTube now he has a ton of stuff that I missed.

Thanks, I need to watch what he's been saying.

There is an old thread that talked about Giants. It looks like most of the posting were before Vieira did his shows. I added a post to the thread to pop it up to the top of the threads. Feel free to jump in and bring the thread back to life. That might start discussions again. Have fun.

BTW, For the back problems get:

28 Days to Yoga, by Richard Hittleman
https://www.amazon.com/Richard-Hittlema ... 0553277480

It literally is about doing a few minutes each day for 28 days until you build up three simple routines. I don't do the weird postures like standing on my head, so I've been able to boil it down to ten minutes of long muscle stretching. That's all you need to keep your back loose.

I've been giving away copies to people for decades.
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:56 am

Open Mind wrote:So is it the conspiracy theory? Because as literally almost all animals, plants, insects, and fish were bigger the farther back you go, including Gigantopithecus, a human cousin ffs, then its a frustrating thing to have to deal logically if most if not all acknowledged archeological findings are of homo sapiens under 6'.

Help me past this stumbling block. To me, its literally the most important question.
Homo Sapiens didn't exist far back enough for significant differences. A likely ancestor did though (although I doubt this was anything to do with gravity as we currently have 9ft 1,000lb bears walking around);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
According to Lee R. Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand, tibia and femora remains indicate that populations of H. heidelbergensis between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago were routinely over 2.1 m (7 ft) tall.[46][47][48] According to him, this was a short-lived experiment that lasted during a grassland expansion, which lead to very large ungulates and antelopes.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:54 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
The Expanding Earth process is incredibly slow. Any measurable discrepancy takes 10's of millions of years. You're looking for changes in an era that cannot possibly have any measurable detection. Also how do we know height was an advantage for vegetable eating tree-dwellers? Maybe taller humans were easily spotted by the meat eating big cats at the top of the food chain.

However, we do have giants. Go back 150+ million years. These animals could not survive standing in this gravity yet they thrived for millions of years. Meganeura would not be able to get off the ground yet dragonfly are the fastest and deadliest hunters on the planet. That's the trap of the mainstream, but they have to keep their minds closed to maintain this facade they have built their careers on.


I am much more convinced of the slow process than the idea of a 10% expansion 12 thousand years ago. Good to hear. My follow up post did mention the plausibility of how humans Darwinian evolution may have been influenced by the advantage of being smaller considering for a very long time, up until the Younger dryas, animals were considerably larger than they are today. Yes we have 9ft 1,000lb bears, but they would be dwarfed by the 11 ft short faced bear from back then. That's 6' at the shoulder.

Which brings up another thought. We can all agree that the mega mammals pre Younger dryas, were bigger. Not as big as dinosaurs, but obviously bigger than today. And you are confident that there hasn't been a recent significant gravitational change. So is it possible dependent on the circumstances of the environment, that certain species will shrink and adapt quicker than other species to the equilibrium of the 'ideal scale' for the present gravity? Because it appears North America contained mostly species who's scale hadn't adjusted as fast as humans did. Is it possible they simply slowed down under their slowly increasing weight and benefited from a less challenging balance of predation that was more of a 'zero sum game' of disadvantages equally distributed among the predators and prey? Because if that's a possibility, then it compounds the advantages of smaller human offspring being more advantaged to survive.
And as an additional coroboration, it does lend to the lesser convincing theory of the Blitzkrieg or mass slaughter of mega mammals. Many alternative theorists have dismissed that idea, but in a situation where that old story of the land bridge people crossing caused a spike in human predation, maybe its possible these people stumbled on a continent of delayed scale adjusted fauna who's agility made them easy targets for predation to more well adjusted and orgainized human populations entering.

Just a thought. But it still feels like a patch job to explain the discrepancy of scale adjustments between humans vs many other animals, unless of course the rumors of a mix of extremes in height of human populations were true, validating the stories like David and Goliath.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby JP Michael » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:47 pm

I was reading Velikovsky yesterday and he made the remarkable statement that fossilised remains of Indigenous Americans have been found in so-called "Pleistocene" geological layers in Florida, including a plethora of remains of the selfsame age's exinct mega-fauna[1]. Dating of the human remains in light of manufactured artefacts found at the scene (Vero and Melbourne, Florida) placed them around the same time as 2,000-1,000 BCE indigenous settlement of that American penninsula.

Velikovsky wrote:There is no proper way out of this dilemma, other than the assumption that now extinct animals still existed in historical times and that the catastrophe which overwhelmed man and animals and annihilated numerous species occurred in the second or first millennium before the present era.

The geologists are right: the human remains and artifacts of Vero and Melbourne in Florida are of the same age as the fossils of the extinct animals.

The anthropologists are equally right: the human remains and artifacts are of the second or first millennium before the present era.

What follows? It follows that the extinct animals belonged to the recent past. It follows also that some paroxysm of nature heaped together these assemblages; the same paroxysm of nature may have destroyed numerous
species so that they became extinct.[2]


According to this particular avenue of evidence, the "Pleistocene" ended only ~3000 years ago. The "Younger Dryas" megafauna were still on earth when a sudden cataclysm wiped them off the American continent, alongside much of its human denizens, only ~3,000-4,000 years ago. And that cataclysm is not limited to the USA, either. It was a worldwide event.

Getting back on topic to the OP: the earth's apparent size, if it has changed, could change rapidly under certain conditions (namely, extraterrestrial interference by a passing agent, be it Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, or whatever). Millions of years are not required, which is one of Velikovsky's main points. Catastrophic geological forces occur quickly in a matter of hours, days or at most months, especially when precipitated by earth's primary planetary antagonists of the past, and leave scars for millennia to come. We can only look at the scars. We cannot repeat the cataclysmic events that brought them about, but we can and should hypothesise the forces that indeed did so. This is where Velikovsky remains a pioneer in the field, even if some of his conclusions are no longer valid and in spite of criticism of his 'cherry-picking' style of evidence.

I think some consideration regarding the earth's apparent volume and its relationship to charge needs to be made. When earth was a sattellite of Saturn, was it smaller? How much smaller? How would you determine how much smaller it was? And when it entered the sun's electrical domain (plasmasheath) alongside the other planets in the recent past, how much bigger did it (or could it) have grown? Were there periods of fluctuation in this apparent size when (I hypthesise) the Saturnian system broke up around the time of the Exodus, or during the violent reigns of Venus and Mars? Lastly, can such expansion-retraction of a spherical (hollow?) rocky body responding to alterations in charge potential be simulated in laboratory conditions?

[1] Earth in Upheaval, pp. 151-153
[2] Ibid, 153.
User avatar
JP Michael
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:36 pm

Hard to re examine all the presumptions built into dating techniques.

Like the method used for dating the rock strips on the oceanic ridges. There is a magnetic signature in the rocks themselves that help to distinguish the separate formations.

"To confirm the ages obtained with magnetic records, and get an absolute age of the seafloor, scientists use the radioactive dating technique. When the lava solidifies at the ridges to form the new seafloor, radioactive elements coming from the mantle are trapped in it. These elements, like 238U (Uranium) or 40K (Potassium) are unstable, and decay with a very precise rate to become what is called daughter products: 206P (Lead) for Uranium and 40Ar (Argon) for Potassium. By measuring the amount of remaining radioactive elements and daughter products in the seafloor, scientists can determine when the magma crystallized, and thus know the absolute age of the seafloor."

But if you incorporate the idea that there were electrical events occurring to the earth, which is not considered in mainstream science, then how can anyone know to ask if these electrical events could have affected the rate of decay of these "very precise" decay rates.

Its frustrating always having to doubt the certainty of 'accepted science'. There's probably lots of ACTUAL confirmed and accepted science that might get lumped into that field of 'doubted conclusions' that shouldn't be. But then its not a problem any mainstream have to deal with. Blissful ignorance for centuries if we let it.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:18 am

Open Mind wrote:Just a thought. But it still feels like a patch job to explain the discrepancy of scale adjustments between humans vs many other animals, unless of course the rumors of a mix of extremes in height of human populations were true, validating the stories like David and Goliath.
So what if many other animals had "giant" ancestors. Why does that means humans should have also? There are 6,000 mammals, have you checked all of them to evidence human evolution as some sort of discrepancy?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:27 am

Open Mind wrote:Its frustrating always having to doubt the certainty of 'accepted science'. There's probably lots of ACTUAL confirmed and accepted science that might get lumped into that field of 'doubted conclusions' that shouldn't be. But then its not a problem any mainstream have to deal with. Blissful ignorance for centuries if we let it.
Then you need to change your outlook. It's fundamental of the scientific method to doubt "accepted science". If you're not continually doubting science then you're just an acolyte.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:56 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Then you need to change your outlook. It's fundamental of the scientific method to doubt "accepted science". If you're not continually doubting science then you're just an acolyte.


True, but then if you ARE continually doubting science, you could be considered a nihilist. The distinction I was focused on is the definition of "Accepted Science". The value of that title is rapidly diminishing before our eyes, because the challenge vs defense of it has a global audience now, so the integrity of the debate has become a reality tv show. That's the frustrating part.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:20 pm

Aardwolf wrote:There are 6,000 mammals, have you checked all of them to evidence human evolution as some sort of discrepancy?


True. It would be interesting to see the distribution of animals that had larger versions pre Younger Dryas vs ones that did not. I'd be interested to see if there was a correlation between predators and prey or if the degree of size difference had anything to do with the amount or significance of their defense attributes.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:31 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Then you need to change your outlook. It's fundamental of the scientific method to doubt "accepted science". If you're not continually doubting science then you're just an acolyte.


True, but then if you ARE continually doubting science, you could be considered a nihilist. The distinction I was focused on is the definition of "Accepted Science". The value of that title is rapidly diminishing before our eyes, because the challenge vs defense of it has a global audience now, so the integrity of the debate has become a reality tv show. That's the frustrating part.
No a nihilist doubts meaning/existence of everything which has no productive quality. Scientific scepticism is the only method of progressing science and is probably the single most important aspect.

Science is determined by facts, not acceptance.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:17 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:There are 6,000 mammals, have you checked all of them to evidence human evolution as some sort of discrepancy?


True. It would be interesting to see the distribution of animals that had larger versions pre Younger Dryas vs ones that did not. I'd be interested to see if there was a correlation between predators and prey or if the degree of size difference had anything to do with the amount or significance of their defense attributes.
You stated that that there was a discrepancy between humans and many other animals so I thought you had checked. Are you just assuming the existence of this "discrepancy"?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:54 am

Aardwolf wrote:No a nihilist doubts meaning/existence of everything which has no productive quality. Scientific scepticism is the only method of progressing science and is probably the single most important aspect.

Science is determined by facts, not acceptance.


Your right of course. But the stigma of "Climate Denier" is conflated pretty close to nihilist these days, the worth of that judgement being measured in quantity rather than quality of attribution.


Aardwolf wrote:You stated that there was a discrepancy between humans and many other animals so I thought you had checked. Are you just assuming the existence of this "discrepancy"?


Sorry. I have no particular data. I'm going off the obvious lack of 'trust worthy' evidence of larger scale humans, vs the large amount of huge fauna remains below the younger dryas layer. When I try to search for pre younger dryas animals that were 'normal size' its very hard to find considering the popularity of the huge beasts. I'm open to the existence of some present day animals who had Pre YD relatives that were similar size. Its just challenging to find them because no one seems to give a shit about them. lol
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:25 am

Open Mind wrote:Your right of course. But the stigma of "Climate Denier" is conflated pretty close to nihilist these days, the worth of that judgement being measured in quantity rather than quality of attribution.
Sorry I think you may need to be more specific. I don't know anyone who denies the existence of climate.

Open Mind wrote:Sorry. I have no particular data. I'm going off the obvious lack of 'trust worthy' evidence of larger scale humans, vs the large amount of huge fauna remains below the younger dryas layer.
Lower gravity in the past doesn't mean that animals are required to increase in size, it's just a size limiter. Like I said, there may have been no physiological benefit to a being taller, larger, heavier...and slower human, when there are tigers running around and no-one has got around to inventing weapons.

Open Mind wrote:When I try to search for pre younger dryas animals that were 'normal size' its very hard to find considering the popularity of the huge beasts. I'm open to the existence of some present day animals who had Pre YD relatives that were similar size. Its just challenging to find them because no one seems to give a shit about them. lol
Probably just an odd way you have decided to search. Looking at tigers for example their ancestors were smaller;

https://www.tigers-world.com/tiger-evolution/
TIGER FOSSILS
The earliest remains of tigers found in China are more than 2 million years old. These fossils indicate that the ancestors of existing Tigers were much smaller than they are today.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Open Mind » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:18 am

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.

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.
Open Mind
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby johnm33 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:17 pm

Open mind, you say you're tall well that indicates that your maternal grandmother was well nourished when your mothers eggs were being formed, and if her mother was well nourished at the appropriate time then maybe your close to your genetic limit.
Herbivores grow in competition with predators, either big enough to be too much trouble or fast enough to avoid it, they don't last otherwise, big reptiles needed only about 10% of the calories a warm blooded creature would need so could get bigger, which may have helped them to stay alert through the shorter nights of a faster spinning smaller
planet.
There were all sorts of newspaper reports of giant skeletons being found, maybe in the cosmic tusk? but there seems to be a remnant population, perhaps inbred and regressed somewhat read AD Halls blog and see what you think https://thedailyplasma.blog/2017/09/13/ ... ogy-seven/
Lyell when he created uniformitarian geology asked someone how much Niagara eroded each year and was told 3-4 foot, he decided that was wrong and about 1ft. would be better, that made Niagara 12,000 years old instead of 3-4,000 everything else has been hammered to fit, any geologist who fancies a career driving taxis can dispute it.
johnm33
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests