Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

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

Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby tholden » Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:59 pm

From the mid-1980s to the early or mid 1990s , I was pretty much the only person on Earth claiming that there was any kind of an insurmountable problem involving dinosaurs in our present gravity . That battle has pretty much been won now. The question now is , what exactly was causing the attenuation of gravity which was permitting the sizes of the super animals of past ages ?

The most common answer that you see ( which also turns out to be wrong) is that the Earth itself must have expanded since prehistoric times. The most major assumption involved in that one is that the expansion in question took place during the 65 million years (which we have been indoctrinated to believe all our lives separates our age from the age of dinosaurs).

But again as we have seen, researchers are now finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains; blind radiocarbon tests are showing dinosaur Remains To be a few thousand or a couple of tens of thousands of years old and not Millions or tens of Millions; and petroglyphs on Canyon walls in North America showing known dinosaur types are not tens of millions of years old .

At least some of this earth expanding would have to have taken place during the last few Thousand Years. There would not be any ancient buildings still standing since the Earth would have expanded underneath them Like as not, maps from two or three centuries ago even probably wouldn't work . You would have arrived at your destination according to the map , and you still would not be there.

The real answer is more complicated than earth expanding theories or earth expanding fairies. As per the theory of Ralph sansbury, gravity turns out to be an electrostatic dipole effect and not a basic force in nature or any kind of a geometrical thing as Albert Einstein claimed. It was simply being damped by the much greater electrostatic surface charge of the Earth in prehistoric times .
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby allynh » Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:29 pm

Ted,

I hate to point this out, because I enjoy your book on Dinosaurs, but you are missing a key point on how gravity is what rules pressure in a column of air, or water, or rock.

I saw the problem at University in the 70s when I took labs in Fluid Dynamics and Hydrology. The equations used the force of gravity as the key part. I saw then, that if you vary the gravity, you vary the pressure.

- The way we looked at it in the lab, was a column of water about 34 feet high was equal to one atmosphere.

Look at the Earth in parts. You have the atmosphere, the oceans, the crust. Each is under pressure, all based on the gravity of the Earth.

Atmosphere:

I live in Santa Fe, NM. The elevation is 7,000 feet. If you reduce the gravity by half, I am suddenly at the same atmospheric pressure as if I was at 14,000 feet. Reduce the gravity to 1/6th or 1/12th -- as it was when dinosaurs were really big -- and the continents are suddenly so low pressure that they can only support life near sea level.

Ocean:

The Ocean is in balance with the pressure and dissolved gasses. You reduce the gravity by half and suddenly all of those dissolved gases come out of solution. The Oceans would boil, and the fish killed as they fill with bubbles of gas. Reduce gravity to 1/6th or 1/12th and you kill all life in the Oceans. Plus, there is frozen methane in the silt of the Ocean floor, held stable by the cold and the pressure. Reduce gravity, the pressure reduces and those frozen gasses are released.

Crust:

If you reduce the gravity by half, the crust is under less pressure and the crust will rebound, basically expand. This will cause massive earthquakes. Plus, the motion of that rock will cause piezoelectric current to generate massive electrical charge flowing through the crust. Volcanos are basically that electrical current shorting through and melting the crust.

The fact that we are still alive means that gravity has not varied on a constant size Earth. The facts you demonstrated in your book was that gravity was a fraction of what it is today, when the early dinosaurs lived. The only way gravity has increased is by the Earth Growing from a body half the size of the Moon to where we are now.

Yes, the timeline of events is far faster than consensus history would like to admit. The sites found during Green Sahara, six thousand and ten thousand years ago demonstrate that the Earth Grew about 10% to 15% just a short while ago.

- The bodies found in the 10k site were an average of 6' 5", where the bodies found at the 6k site were 5' 6".

The Megafauna die-off around the same time supports that as well.
allynh
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:00 am

Your other points are open to interpretation however the following is not a valid criticism of Expanding Earth;
tholden wrote:At least some of this earth expanding would have to have taken place during the last few Thousand Years. There would not be any ancient buildings still standing since the Earth would have expanded underneath them Like as not, maps from two or three centuries ago even probably wouldn't work . You would have arrived at your destination according to the map , and you still would not be there.
The Earth at the surface expands at fault lines, not at every point on Earh equally so buildings are not going to fall over. Also, 200-300 years ago sailing across an ocean could take weeks to months depending on weather, tides, wind etc. so there was no way of determining if land had moved apart.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby tholden » Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:58 pm

I suspect that atmospheres in the recent past were mainly being held to planets by electrostatic forces and not by gravity.

And then there is the main problem I mentioned, again:

At least some of this earth expanding would have to have taken place during the last few Thousand Years. There would not be any ancient buildings still standing since the Earth would have expanded underneath them

Baalbek as one example was certainly from within the age during which gravity was heavily attenuated. The one column stone should convince anybody of that. The army corps of engineers and Bechtel have said that no modern technology could move a stone like that a single inch. Nothing would be left standing of any of the structures there if the planet had been expanding enough to produce such an effect beneath the foundations. You'd certainly never get the almost microscopically tight fits between stones which you see at many very ancient sites if the planet had been expanding underneath those structures. The stones would just be lying around catawampus.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby allynh » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:50 pm

Yes, I agree that the various megastructures world wide are deeply disturbing, but even at 1/6th gravity they could not be built with today's equipment. Something else was going on there, not just low gravity, and I'm not talking Aliens. HA! I suspect that it was something stranger going on.

Then there are the local stories of when Thunderbird walked the Earth. The people remember when the surrounding mountains like the Sandias, a mile of cliff face, lifted out off the ground. They remember the lava flows from Mount Taylor, the malpais. That's why they are sacred. The whole state is covered in lava and basalt that is not easily explained as "just" from volcanos that "happened" millions of years ago..

Heavy metal mining, uranium, near Mount Taylor. Large gold, silver, copper deposits in the south of New Mexico, all from transmutation due to massive electrical strikes, in historical memory.

I have great fun writing Fiction about what may have happened, but all we can do is acknowledge that something did happen to cut that stone, build those structures, shape the land. We just do not know the mechanism, yet. And it's that level of "We don't know" that scares people. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:00 am

its obvious the earth is expanding because of two reasons. The plates are fractured and moving indicating stress and the planet is being showered in protons and electrons which add mass over time.

you might be confusing the earths natural growth with some other cataclysms or expecting massive upheavals when they might be attributed to other events.

comets & birthed planets
electrical and material impacts
random(ish) electrical stressing from the sun/galaxy
other events in the solar system such as explosions and orbit changes
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:55 am

tholden wrote:...if the planet had been expanding underneath those structures.
Can you explain why an Expanding Earth would affect specific structures? The expansion is evidenced at the various faults driven by expansion deep inside the earth, not in the immediate ground/crust below us. The crust remains largely in tact hence the separating continents. You're just setting up a straw man argument.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Why I reject Earth-expanding theories

Unread postby a31ford » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:31 am

For what it's WORTH.

Why does everyone look at earth as a static object ? I'm referring to it's size more so than anything else...

Has it occurred to anyone that 6x million years ago earth was a much smaller size AND mass, that it is today ?

where does all the "overburden" come from, that places crude oil deposits, and fossils, 100x feet under such overburden ??

In part, here in central Canada, we have "The Great Canadian shield" (FYI a huge solid rock under most of central Canada), there is NO subduction, or faults to move landmass around, so how did the bones of the Alberta badlands get so far down.... It's Easy ! we have "New mass" I've read some were that the earth receives some 2400 tons of cosmic dust, per YEAR, do some math... 4 million, NO 6 million years ago (is the dust addition a constant ( I would assume a negative logarithmic amount, since as we move through space, much has already been agglomerated to ALL planets, sun, stars, etc, since then)) 6 million times lets say a mean average of 3000 tons/year (for the sake of discussion), THAT my fellow EU friends is one HUGE number, I would happen to guess that during that time if one worked the math out,,, that would account for most cases of overburden above any fossils or crude oil deposits.

Y/D boundary event. If that was said 15,000 years ago.... we can calculate the "cosmic dust addition to mass factor" (And that does NOT include asteroid Impacts, of any size or WHEN they impacted, (the great die-off, etc.)).

The Grand Canyon (NOT the process, rather, the strata) I've read that the rock (NOT what has slid down, rather the actual base rock) at the bottom is some 4-6 million years old.... so everything above is "said cosmic overburden.

Here is where it gets neat !!!
make a pie, put the crust on it.... (NO Steam slits) now add say, water on top... what do you think will happen (Assuming a containment method is in place to add more, and more water above the crust)

I can guarantee at some point the filling will "Poke" or "rupture" through the "ORIGINAL CRUST" (Lava flow, even).

At some point, the overburden weight causes lava to "force it's way to the surface" what WAS the underside of the original crust sinks just slightly, to replace the mass that went "topside". HOWEVER the earths circumference is growning, NOT from the lava, from the cosmic dust..

The USGS did Pacific sea-floor samples some 100 feet down each, in a line from the US to northern coast of China IMSC, why is the floor NEWER not surface, but rock, newer, than the rock at the coastlines (note plural) Continental drift ?? NOPE, circumference growth from added mass.......

IMO, the earth was much smaller back then, AND had less "gravity" (mass attraction), animals where larger because of this, asteroid death, yes, (and more mass, yes).

Much of what is happening is mass addition, on a global scale, oh, and BTW the added mass would "superheat" the core from what it was, till now. As more mass exists, the density, do to mass attraction (I do not believe in "gravity" as a force), also increase's, The attraction factor of then (6 million) vs. now, (currently) is a different number (by a large amount).

Back to the pie... the earth simply hold the extra mass, just as it holds us, so it doesn't need a support structure to hold the extra mass....
If you do not have the "time" to do something right, the first time... When are you going to ? :geek:
User avatar
a31ford
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:03 pm
Location: Brandon, Manitoba,Canada


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests