Are the planets growing?

[Anaconda]

It has been my opinion, since becoming aware of both the growing Earth theory and Electric Universe theory, that the two are related.

I present an interesting conjunction of pieces of evidence from both schools of thought that reinforce the idea that the two are related:

Neal Adams has put together a set of videos that illustrate the growing Earth hypothesis (actually, it's closer to a theory as there is so much scientific evidence to support it). Yes, others have identified issues with Neal Adams' specific mechanisms and so forth, but in general Adams does a good job illustrating the expanding Earth model.

I present a short (roughly three minutes) YouTube clip of one of Neal Adams' video illustrations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI ... re=related

The part which is relevant to the issue I bring attention to is toward the end of the clip. And, that is on a smaller Earth the Southern tip of Africa is centered right over the South Pole.

Why could this be significant?

Well, Electric Universe theory suggests there were tremendous electrical discharges (literally sustained huge lightning bolts) impinging or emanating from the Earth at some time in the Earth's geological history (the timing is uncertain) or sustained mega Birkeland currents.

Also, Electric Universe and Dr. Anthony L. Peratt suggest there was an sustained auroral Axis Mondi at both poles of the Earth of an order of magnitude stronger than anything observed & measured, today. This Axis Mondi was visible to Man and was recorded in ancient petroglyphs. A tremendous amount of electrical, plasma energy was flowing in and out of the poles of the Earth, and presumably a tremendous flow of free electrons and ions as well.

It turns out there is physical evidence of an electrical discharge points in South Africa, the kimberlite eruption and resulting "pipes" where daimonds have been mined. Please see the link for this TPOD, The Electrical Origin of Kimberlite Pipes:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... erlite.htm

When the two sets of evidence is put together, there is evidence that a powerful sustained mega Birkeland current caused the kimberlite pipes on a smaller Earth and that the location of the kimberlite pipe might be related to the relative location of the Eath's South Pole and corresponding magnetic South Pole of the Earth's bipole magnetic field at the time of the event:

...there is clear evidence that these diatremes were machined downwards from the surface by a magmatic vortex effect.

This strongly suggests kimberlite eruptions are essentially electrical discharge sites of short duration between the Earth and another cosmic body, where electrical charge differences between the Earth and the interloper caused electrical short circuits between them. The rotary or tunneling mechanism recognized from the shape and structure of the kimberlite diatremes can then be explained as the result of powerful Birkeland currents corkscrewing into the Earth’s surface forming the smooth and steep sides of the kimberlite diatreme.

It would also be interesting to know the location of the Siberian traps at this same time that the kimberlite pipe were being formed at the South Pole of a smaller Earth?

Could the Siberian Traps have been located at the North Pole and magnetic North Pole of a smaller Earth?

Electric Universe theory suggests the Siberian Traps are also due to electrical discharge activity. Please see the link for this TPOD, The Siberian Traps:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ntraps.htm

It seems likely that northern Siberia was the location of lightning strikes as big as half a continent...

I have not located information on where the Siberian Traps would have been located on a smaller Earth. But could it have been located at or near the North Pole on a smaller Earth?

And, further, is it possible that the kimberlite pipes in South Africa and the Siberian Traps happened at the same time and are related as a result of an tremdous influx of plasma electrical energy directed through the bipole magnetic field of a smaller Earth some time in the distant geological past?

Could this massive inflow of electrical, plasma energy precipitated the Precambrian Mass Extinction (allowing that the timing of the event is uncertain)?

And, in terms of the Growing Earth theory, could this electrical, plasma event been the infusion of energy and matter needed to trigger and contribute to the Growing Earth expansion mechanism?

This is an example of why I subscribe to the idea that Electric Universe theory and Growing Earth theory are compatible and complimentary. Indeed, one may rely on the other for it's energy and matter requirements.

Something to consider.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Anaconda,
Interesting bit of speculation but I don't understand this bit:

And, in terms of the Growing Earth theory, could this electrical, plasma event been the infusion of energy and matter needed to trigger and contribute to the Growing Earth expansion mechanism?

The infusion of energy I can understand but where is the extra matter coming from?

[Anaconda]

Hi Grey Cloud:

Grey Cloud asked:

The infusion of energy I can understand but where is the extra matter coming from?

The extra matter is in the form of free electrons and ions.

[GaryN]

Hi GC, I had a go at explaining matter creation in this post:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =90#p31103

I have limited time (and ability!) to investigate the exact details, but matter can be created from photons:

Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another photon or other boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

There is a lot to look at, GC, I'd love to understand it all in detail, but it's easier just to accept that matter can be crated where it didn't before when sufficient other energies are available.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Anaconda and Gary,
Thanks for the replies.
Okay, I have no problem with matter being created genrally or being created by photons. My question now is: how much are you saying the Earth grew and how many photons would that take? To the nearest dozen will do . Seems to me to be a lot of photons.
I'll have a look at the links.

[Florian]

And, in terms of the Growing Earth theory, could this electrical, plasma event been the infusion of energy and matter needed to trigger and contribute to the Growing Earth expansion mechanism?

This is an example of why I subscribe to the idea that Electric Universe theory and Growing Earth theory are compatible and complimentary. Indeed, one may rely on the other for it's energy and matter requirements.

Something to consider.

Obviously, Earth must receive a tremendous amount of energy to fuel the growth. But we can also look at other planets/moons to figure it out. I mean, Enceladus is very active despite its small size (less than 500 km in diameter).
Regarding the poles palaeoposition, don't trust Neal Adams Videos. They are mostly wrong. James Maxlow has reconstructed the pole palaeoposition quite accurately using palaeomagnetic data. See his PhD thesis.
I remark that EU advocates tend to explain everything, including simple geological well known structures and mechanisms, using electrical discharge. This is completely unnecessary and certainly discredit the EU.

[Florian]

Hi Anaconda and Gary,
Thanks for the replies.
Okay, I have no problem with matter being created genrally or being created by photons. My question now is: how much are you saying the Earth grew and how many photons would that take? To the nearest dozen will do . Seems to me to be a lot of photons.
I'll have a look at the links.

Oh yeah it takes a lot of energy! On average, that is the equivalent of 1.8 millions metric tons per second (!) assuming a nearly constant density.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Florian,
Thanks.
1.8 millions metric tons per second. Questions: over what time period? Was all the energy converted matter?

Just for the record, I have no hard and fast views about EE or non-EE. From my own, non-scientific, perspective I can argue it either way. I could also do a variable sized Earth, ie. sometimes it's larger, sometimes it's smaller.

P.S. I get nose-bleeds and dizzy spells posting this high up on the boards.

[Grey Cloud]

Correction of typo: I should have written 'Was all the energy converted TO matter?'

[nick c]

I have never seen or heard of any experiment, observation, or demonstration of a process whereby matter can be created ex nihilo. Anaconda's explanation is, of course, not involving any matter creation at all, but rather the transfer of matter from one place to another, which is a commonly observed, far less exotic, and much easier to accept... process.
Creation from photons (just because we have a word for something do we really know what it is?) sounds okay as long as it is assumed that a photon is composed of matter. I don't think that it is acceptable to most physicists(?)
Saying that spin creates matter, does not make any sense to me, what is spinning?
Perhaps the best position for EE proponents would be to just state, "we have a considerable body of evidence that the Earth has expanded... and as of yet we do not fully understand the mechanism involved," rather than venture into the world of mathematical/magical explanations of a matter creation (from nothing) process. Well that is my opinion.

Enceladus is very active despite its small size (less than 500 km in diameter).

Comets are very active too, and most are much smaller than Enceladus. The activity is not determined by the size of the body and is only relevant as a matter of scale. The process is a that of a body not being in electrical equilibrium with it's plasma environment. The source of the activity is external to the body, electric discharging, not any internal geologic activity. There are many pages of EU literature explaining the process.

I remark that EU advocates tend to explain everything, including simple geological well known structures and mechanisms, using electrical discharge. This is completely unnecessary and certainly discredit the EU.

You write "simple" and "well known" yet most of these features defy simple or well known explanations. The EU cites processes, known to be scalable to many orders of magnitude, that can be duplicated with laboratory experiments to create exact duplicates of the "simple" and "well known" geological features found on a wide assortment of celestial bodies. Rather than a discredit to the EU this is a strength!

Nick

[ElecGeekMom]

Has anyone ever created a geode in a lab?

[Florian]

Hi Florian,
Thanks.
1.8 millions metric tons per second. Questions: over what time period? Was all the energy converted matter?

That is the rate average to fuel the growth in mass over the last 5 millions years.

[Florian]

Creation from photons (just because we have a word for something do we really know what it is?) sounds okay as long as it is assumed that a photon is composed of matter. I don't think that it is acceptable to most physicists(?)

A photon is not composed of matter at all. It is an electromagnetic wave. The creation of positron-electron pair from gamma photon has been experimentally observed. Note that the annihilation of a positron-electron pair forms 2 gamma photons.

Perhaps the best position for EE proponents would be to just state, "we have a considerable body of evidence that the Earth has expanded... and as of yet we do not fully understand the mechanism involved," rather than venture into the world of mathematical/magical explanations of a matter creation (from nothing) process. Well that is my opinion.

Agree. This is truly the best position.

Comets are very active too, and most are much smaller than Enceladus. The activity is not determined by the size of the body and is only relevant as a matter of scale.

By active, I mean "growing", as proven by the large active diapir at the south pole of Enceladus:

You write "simple" and "well known" yet most of these features defy simple or well known explanations.

Could you give me a few examples?

[allynh]

I just watched the awesome DVD:

National Geographic: Drain the Ocean (2009)
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... 9/Overview

Here are the first two parts of the series.

Drain the Ocean (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5KOBMKwnQ

Drain the Ocean (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AekXhNE512M

The DVD shows the shear scale of the underwater landscape. There is no way that the oceans could have been carved out by plasma. There is nothing similar on any other planet to match the extremes of ocean and continent. Remember, EDM is used to polish a surface, there is no way that 30% of the surface would be left uncut while 70% is etched miles deep.

The earth is 30% land, and 70% water. That is a 2.33 times difference. If the ocean level drops a mile, the air pressure at the current sea level would be roughly equal to 2.33 miles. There is no physical way to cut out the oceans without rendering the continents airless, killing everything, and then somehow fill the deep cuts with water afterwards.

In watching the DVD they show the few trenches where they think subduction is occurring, but as I posted far upstream, any subduction zone would be covered in muck as the sediment is scrapped off the descending surface.

When you can see the few areas that are deep trenches it is clear that this is where the crust is splitting to form an even deeper surface as the crust grows.

The images on the DVD were scary as heck.

[starbiter]

Hello Allyn: If the Earth is expanding, and the ocean trenches are the result, why don't the other rocky planets have similar features. Wouldn't the process be universal. Or would the Earth be special.

As i said earlier concerning Electrical Discharge Machining, it's probably not the best term to describe Electrical Excavation. And this advice is from someone with a PhD. in Plasma Physics, not me. EDM is Electrical Excavation, Electrical Excavation is not necessarily EDM, if that makes any sense. Electrical Excavation may be capable of more than polishing.

I find the source of the oceans confusing. Earth in Upheaval has some clues. The mid ocean ridge in the Atlantic probably has answers i don't understand. The sediment pattern is interesting. The ridge has very thick sediment, the flat bottom has less than 100 ft. in many places. Whatever that means.

If the trenches were electrical, it might have been pre life, so survivability might not be an issue.

i'll go back to listening, michael