Are the planets growing?

[Brigit Bara]

Florian wrote:
Sorry, but oceans are not carved. They exist because the growth rate is so fast for 200 My that the mantle get directly exposed to the surface, partially melts and forms basaltic crust.

Florian,

There is room for an alternative view of the mid-ocean ridges. They could be electrical scars. 3 reasons--

1. The paleomagnetic striping on the sea floor is assumed to be proof of the magma welling up and growing the sea floor. However, if powerful electric bolts are responsible for reversing earth's magnetic poles, than I think the discharge that carved the ocean basins could have been simultaneously playing havoc with N and S and leaving the same record.

2. If the mid-ocean ridges maintain parallel sides, it does not necessarily mean that they were at one time joined and then split apart. It can also be the result of electrical scarring.

3. Scarring comparable to the mid-ocean ridges can be found on Enceladus.

The so-called "tiger stripe" terrain, out of which jet plumes of warm water vapor, are most likely manifesting a weaker version of the massive electrical activity that once carved and punctured Enceladus with magnetically confined plasma beams. (see picture)

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 007sky.htm

For me it all boils down to whether the ridges are growing are not. I think there are good arguments both ways. Would welcome a look at the thread if you have covered that already.

[Brigit Bara]

allynh, your model hums along nicely. I like it. If there is enough Oxygen in the crust to combine with Hydrogen from the earth's interior and create water, though, it still does not preclude the presence of molecular O inside of earth.

Besides, the O in the crust is strongly bound, except for the oxydized irons and the sulfates--at least according to the book, The Deep Hot Biosphere. So I like the Marklund convection interior. But either way, we have concentric shells of lighter elements inside the earth, so I won't nit pick.

I just like to have several hypothesis going at this time in my life. It's better than going off the deep end over one theory, and it also makes the Uncertainty about what we actually really know a little easier! Why not!

[allynh]

Exactly. It wouldn't be fun if we knew what we were talking about. The moment all this becomes mainstream, I'm off chasing the next pot of gold.

[allynh]

Shelgeyr was asking about my original whacky GET post on the Duning thread.

Re: Are Mountains the Result of a Duning Process?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 150#p30925

This was the post sequence from the Duning thread so that everything is in context:

...the shield cracks and causes sharp mountains like the Rockies to form. (snip a great deal, down to...) ...It's like when Steve Smith ignores the continents fitting together in the various TPODS and says that the oceans were carved out from a static size Earth. The Earth is not static in size.

Forgive me if my edits butcher your context, that is not my intent. I just wanted to say that I've got to go with Steve on this one, for a variety of reasons, and since the Rockies are one of them, I wanted to include your first quote.

There are many electricity-caused structures spanning much of the globe, which line up in either straight lines or along natural-log based "Golden Spirals", according to where they are right now. Which overwhelmingly indicate they were formed where they currently are. This would include the Rockies, at least partially formed by a rotating "Golden Spiral" discharge centered (temporarily) over what is now Yellowstone.

This has probably already been mentioned in these 15 pages of conversation to date, but if not then let me point out that (and here I'll insert the obligatory "I believe") what with electrical phenomena scaling quite nicely, and forming similar patterns in similar circumstances, it should come as no surprise that certain areas seem to "fit" together when they were in fact formed in place.

Yes, continents shake and move a bit (obviously), but they didn't get where they are through either continental drift nor through surfing a swelling planet.

And, side note, Steve - if you're still around - I'd like to discuss Lake Victoria with you. Nice writeup awhile back.

My response:

Forgive me if my edits butcher your context, that is not my intent.

No problem, I love to talk Growing Earth. Check out the Are the planets growing? thread for more discussion.

My problem is, Australia and things like Ares Rock are the same rock as North America and Asia. Not just similar, but the same, and geologists have known this for over a century. Watch the animated gif a few times and you will see Australia fit perfect between Asia and America. That is such a cool image. I have that set up on my browser so I can see it every day.

The problem that Steve has never address with the etching model, is that huge areas of the Earth would be essentially vaporized. Where did the material go. In every TPOD that discusses craters on moons the material etched from the crater is all piled in the rim wall. Apparently, only on the Earth does the material vanish from the planet.

Lunar Craters—a Failed Theory
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... crater.htm

And the total volume of ejected material needed to form the secondary craters along Tycho's rays, would amount to some 10,000 cubic kilometers – an amount of material entirely inconsistent with careful measurements indicating that practically all material excavated from Tycho's crater has been deposited in its rim.

Then from Shelgeyr:

My problem is, Australia and things like Ares Rock are the same rock as North America and Asia. Not just similar, but the same, and geologists have known this for over a century. Watch the animated gif a few times and you will see Australia fit perfect between Asia and America. That is such a cool image. I have that set up on my browser so I can see it every day.

Cool graphic, thanks for the link. Whether I currently agree or not, and I don't, I like the image and will certainly study it well. Morphology-wise, Australia basically looks to me like a sunspot carved in stone. Seriously. And from multiple angles. Chemical-wise I'll have to yeild the point (or vote "Present") regarding its composition, having never studied the matter.

The problem that Steve has never address with the etching model, is that huge areas of the Earth would be essentially vaporized.

Well, Yes, I guess they quite possibly would.

Where did the material go. In every TPOD that discusses craters on moons the material etched from the crater is all piled in the rim wall. Apparently, only on the Earth does the material vanish from the planet.

Well, I'm far from certain I agree that all the material etched from lunar craters is piled up in their rim walls, but since I must admit I (currently) have absolutely nothing to back that up with, please just note that as my opinion so I can move onto my first answer, which would be "all over the crazy place", or "to infinity and beyond".

OK, sorry about that.

It certainly seems like the Matterhorn, to name a memorable mountain at random, was hurled as if by a spiteful demigod from Africa to its current location. But I think the real answer for a majority of the material would be "out into space", and if the Earth was mostly acting as a cathode in a reaction with a passing positively charged object, then "plated all over the body of the interloper" might be a viable candidate answer as well.

Lunar Craters—a Failed Theory
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... crater.htm

And the total volume of ejected material needed to form the secondary craters along Tycho's rays, would amount to some 10,000 cubic kilometers – an amount of material entirely inconsistent with careful measurements indicating that practically all material excavated from Tycho's crater has been deposited in its rim.

I don't know what to really say about that, because I am given to understand that Tycho's rays aren't ejecta in the first place, but the resulting evidence of charges marching across the regolith to a gathering point before blasting into the sky. Or is that the point you're disagreeing with? The more I read that last quote, the less sure I am of which point you are arguing with it, so I'm going to have to ask your indulgence to please clarify the Tycho issue...

I'm having too much fun here.

[allynh]

The more I read that last quote, the less sure I am of which point you are arguing with it, so I'm going to have to ask your indulgence to please clarify the Tycho issue...

Read through the Tycho article again. Steve was trying to point out that since all of the material from the crater were in the crater walls, the rays must be from a different process, not due to explosive spray the way dogma would have us believe.

EDM occurs all over the planet. I live in New Mexico and there are vast areas cut the way the TPODs show, so that is one of many valid mechanisms for shaping the surface, but not the oceans.

My key complaint about etching the oceans is that none of the other planets have that mix of miles deep etching with miles high continents. If even one of the planets or moons had that same blatant stigmata of 3/4 ths of the surfaced etched away I would buy it. To say that the material was etched out, spread around the Earth, or blasted out into space is fine, but having that only occur on Earth makes me doubt that model.

Read through the thread, and you will find the Neal Adams videos showing GET. I hope the links still work, it's been a while since I clicked on them.

Yikes, I better check.

[Shelgeyr]

EDM occurs all over the planet. I live in New Mexico and there are vast areas cut the way the TPODs show, so that is one of many valid mechanisms for shaping the surface, but not the oceans.

My key complaint about etching the oceans is that none of the other planets have that mix of miles deep etching with miles high continents. If even one of the planets or moons had that same blatant stigmata of 3/4 ths of the surfaced etched away I would buy it. To say that the material was etched out, spread around the Earth, or blasted out into space is fine, but having that only occur on Earth makes me doubt that model.

Read through the thread, and you will find the Neal Adams videos showing GET...

OK, I understand your point now. I have not read through this thread yet ("Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks at such time as may be required..." "So ordered!") and I'll obviously have a more informed opinion once I do. However, the one thought that immediately occurred to me regarding the "no other planet but Earth"-ishness of the oceans issue is that no other planet but Earth has such a garishly oversized Moon either. I have always wondered about the dramatic differences in appearance between the near and far side of the Moon, and although I am not at this moment putting that forward as a valid hypothesis, it is the first thing I thought of. If something in the (it pains me to use the term) "solar wind" created a dramatic charge imbalance between the Earth and the Moon, the resulting discharge processes (I'm guessing) could create the ocean basins.

Of course, that may be "cart before the horse" thinking... if the Moon calved off of the Earth due to the surface of the Earth being under too much electrical stress (I'm not saying it did, but I didn't make up that scenario either - it has been proposed before) then perhaps the calving process and the subsequent back-and-forth discharging (as the two bodies approached electrical parity) resulted in the ocean basins. Of course, I'm just speculating, and not in an area I have strong opinions about, so before I come across as planting my flag on this issue (ha! double entendre!) I'm going to halt here (after one last thought) and read some of the suggested back story. Thanks for moving this part of the thread!

Last thought: Although I like the mental image, I'm not sure that having the "missing material" ejected into space is required. Perhaps we already can readily see where (at least some) of this matter went, but haven't recognized it because we call it "the continents". Again, that's not an original thought, but given what I've studied I find it at least somewhat likely - especially for the Pacific. The Atlantic is probably still a whole different story.

[allynh]

Starting with the very first link in the thread. It is just a google search of videos. Here are the list of links on Neal Adams youtube channel.

Neal Adams channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom

Most Incredible Science Conspiracy - Science Blind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo

Moon Conspiracy - Disaster to Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8

World Conspiracy of Science- Earth Grows, Science Knows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOp8j6eOBlI

Conspiracy of Science Lies - Mars Grows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eHF88Z97PE

Incredible Conspiracy of Blind Science - Ganymede Grows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA

Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

Conspiracy - Pangea Theory a Disaster for Physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iW5HUrEkc8

Mars Disasterous Science Conspiracy - Mars is Growing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M

Science Conspiracy- Earth Grows - Oceans are Made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA

Conspiracy Science - Dinosaur Extinction K2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdavRmR-2YE

Conspiracy of Science - Mars is growing aggressively
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeUEzM7hsmY

This is the link to buying DVDs that he is putting out with everything current.

DVDs for Neal's Science Project
http://www.nealadams.com/sciencedvds.html

I'm still waiting for the finished book and DVD before I spend the money.

I'm glad I'm reading through the thread again. I'm only on the first page and found a link to a whole website that I harvested at the time, then totally forgot to read. Duh!

[allynh]

This is the complete version of the German video listed on page 4 of the thread.

Die wachsende Erde - the growing earth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8729665200&#

I can't speak German, but I love that video.

[Brigit Bara]

Good of you to refresh the last page with the original material. :)

[allynh]

Good of you to refresh the last page with the original material.

I had missed a bunch of the early videos because I didn't know how to save them to my desk top, and I totally forgot to go back and harvest stuff. Along the way I'm finding more complete videos.

Your metallic hydrogen article wasn't a surprise to me because good old Asimov had written many stories in the fifties that used metallic hydrogen as construction material. I thought everybody knew about metallic hydrogen.

The Paramagnetic Oxygen video you posted on page 4 is scary as all get out.

Now I'm chasing all of the related Science Daily links triggered by the post keeha made. I'm still trapped on page 4!

[Florian]

This is the complete version of the German video listed on page 4 of the thread.

Die wachsende Erde - the growing earth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8729665200&#

I can't speak German, but I love that video.

I don't like it too much (a bit cranky), except this is how I became aware of the growing Earth theory.

[allynh]

I don't like it too much (a bit cranky), except this is how I became aware of the growing Earth theory.

Oh, I love cranky stuff like that. I've found that they usually have something interesting to say. That's why I understood when Neal Adams ripped into the people on the blog you linked to. It's cranky people that make the changes.

BTW, the Origin of Mountains book came in. I'll read it as soon as I finish Worlds in Collision. I still have to read through the alternate geo paper website as well. Plus, I'm still working through page 4 of this thread. Whoa, there is a lot of stuff that got linked to.

[allynh]

This link on page 4 is broken.

This page discusses how planets form from suns:

http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/fvit ... stems.html

I did a search and found another posting on another blog that eerily uses the same software as the Forum, so I had to do a double take when I saw the page. I'm including it just for completeness, and the fact that it was posted by "Fernando". (Long story. Fernando is not me, but at work my "codename" was "Fernando" when we had to go underground and work without management knowing who. "Who fixed this?" "Some guy called "Fernando".")

http://forums.seds.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=916

Solar systems formation process.
by Fernando » November 23rd, 2005, 11:32 am

"Solar systems are an evolution of stellar clusters."

After a stellar cluster is released from the galaxy nucleus, it begins displacing in the galactic orbitational field.

Since the stars of such clusters are all of different magnitude, size and attractional force, one of the stars (major star) becomes the center of the new arrangement and the rest (minor stars) initiate their discal orbitation pattern around the major star of the stellar system.

As they get far from the hot galaxy nucleus environment, the spatial temperature begins to absorve and cool off the external layers of the minor stars of the stellar cluster.

After a while, in astronomical terms, the exterior of the minor stars of the cluster, begins to modify by means of the effect of the cold spatial temperature and the magma and other materials solidificate, creating a crust or cortex (protection) around the nucleus of the now called "star/planet".

Please refer to Hubbles Space Telescope photo of planet 9903bt for an illustration of this intermediate stage in planets formation.

Minor stars of the stellar/solar system cool off at different timing, so from Earth we can see mainly the incandescent bodies of the systems, still as stars, but not the ones which are off.

After another astronomical time spam, all the minors stars of the system are off (planets now) and the system can be labelled then as a solar system. The major star is the sun of the solar system and the minor stars become the planets.

The above can be demonstrated because:

1. Planets still keep their nucleus incandescent, as a reminder of their past stellar nature, and

2. From the center of the galactic diameter toward its nucleus, we can observe that the majority of the systems are stellar, but from aproximately the center of the galactic diameter, toward its exterior part, the majority of the systems are solar.

For more details and some images visit http://www.google.com requesting: "solar systems formation process" under the link: SOLAR SYSTEMS FORMATION, or directly visit: http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/fvit ... stems.html
Fernando

[Brigit Bara]

I like electric scarring WRT to the oceans for several reasons.

The debris from this process is a potential source of comets; it is a potential source for the asteroid belt; electrical scarring--unlike the expanding earth theory--gives a reasonable explanation for the deposition of layers, which are found extending as far down as we have been able to drill.

The layers may also be explained by electrical sorting of material by grain size, and electrical sorting by composition.

I like the expanding earth theory too. It is striving to answer some really important questions, like the change in earth's gravity and the appearance of the oceans. It's expanding government that keeps me awake at night!

[allynh]

In the Duning thread, nick c, posted this link by Juergens.

The article is titled Radiohalos and Earth History, and begins on page 10.
http://www.aig.asn.au/pdf/AIGNews_May06.pdf

The implications are scary as heck.

I've included it for completeness.

Remember, the other three related threads that talk about transmutation are:

Nuclear Decay Varies With Earth-Sun Distance
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=942&start=0

Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 23&start=0

Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 09&start=0