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? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
Aardwolf
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:27 am

Open Mind wrote:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:17 am
Aardwolf wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:54 pm
allynh wrote:
Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:07 am
The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth.
That was before they could measure things like this;

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 0oct_ftes/
A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
High-energy particles also known as potentially very high speed protons.
The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth.
Surely more than enough mass to grow the Earth over time.
Interesting. Hard to visualize it as they describe it. But I've read from others that the solar wind transfers protons to earth, and while it seems like very little when thinking about the diameter of the earth as a receiving area, if you consider the far larger magnetic field around the earth as the receiving and capturing surface, Its orders of magnitude more.

But in your article they're saying: "Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow.". If Earth's magnetic field strength is shrinking, then I'm assuming the reach of our field is shrinking and pulling back from the sun's magnetic field. So based on my understanding, it would seem the effect they're describing must be experiencing far less occurrences because the 'vin diagram intersection' of ours and the suns magnetic fields are pulling apart. Wouldn't that be reducing these occurrences?
These are high energy particles flowing through the magnetic fields so I would argue they are in addition to the regular solar wind mass ejected and potentially collected by Earth.

allynh
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:13 pm

Aardwolf wrote: That was before they could measure things like this;

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 0oct_ftes/
Yikes!

User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:58 pm

6.0 Magnitude Quake On the Murray Fracture Zone - Implications For Expanding Earth Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBecHjplQAA

User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:56 pm

The Dipole Model of Gravity and the Expanding Earth
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpr ... ing-earth/

Inspired by Wal Thornhill's Dipole Gravity Model
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 0107305139

User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:06 pm


User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:35 pm

Universal Gravity Based on a Dipole Model
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpr ... ole-model/

User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:53 pm

Mars has slowly started expanding. Fissures on Mars opening it up. Mainstream doesn't realize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USFHA7QbeZ8

Someday in the very distant future, Mars will have denser atmosphere due to gasses trapped deep inside Mars being vented. We may see volcanic activity and increase in marsquakes. Gravity will also increase to some extent as a result of expansion. Whether Mars will generate a magnetic field or not remains a question.

Read about Mars and other planets here: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpr ... rse-model/

Open Mind
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:54 pm

I've read that the method of calculation we use to measure the circumference of the earth is modified to compensate for the possibility that the earth is growing. Apparently there is something built into the calculation that compensates for anomalous increases in circumference or diameter, because any increases would be considered an error.

Is it possible that same system of measurement is applied to all planetary bodies, and when they measure the rotation speed of Venus and discover that it has slowed down by 6.5 minutes since the last official measurement 16 years ago, that that slow down is because of a possible increase in its diameter? Just assuming an increase in size might contribute to a slowing rotation, which might be another reason for the changing gravity from a growing planet.

Or is that all word salad?

allynh
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:46 pm

This study only covers a 25 year period, and includes GPS that deliberately adjust measurements to fit a static Earth.

Since that is 0.1 mm a year, they can fool people into thinking that's "statistically insignificant".

BTW, We don't have accurate data from other planets to notice a change in the current "quiet" solar system.

NASA - NASA Research Confirms it’s a Small World, After All
08.16.11
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... 10816.html
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Visit NASA.gov for current information
NASA Research Confirms it’s a Small World, After All
This view of Earth comes from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard the Terra satellite. This view of Earth comes from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard the Terra satellite. Image credit: NASA
› Larger view

A NASA-led research team has confirmed what Walt Disney told us all along: Earth really is a small world, after all.

Since Charles Darwin's time, scientists have speculated that the solid Earth might be expanding or contracting. That was the prevailing belief, until scientists developed the theory of plate tectonics, which explained the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere, or outermost shell. Even with the acceptance of plate tectonics half a century ago, some Earth and space scientists have continued to speculate on Earth's possible expansion or contraction on various scientific grounds.

Now a new NASA study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, has essentially laid those speculations to rest. Using a cadre of space measurement tools and a new data calculation technique, the team detected no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth.

So why should we care if Mother Nature is growing? After all, Earth's shape is constantly changing. Tectonic forces such as earthquakes and volcanoes push mountains higher, while erosion and landslides wear them down. In addition, large-scale climate events like El Nino and La Nina redistribute vast water masses among Earth's ocean, atmosphere and land.

Scientists care because, to put movements of Earth's crust into proper context, they need a frame of reference to evaluate them against. Any significant change in Earth's radius will alter our understanding of our planet's physical processes and is fundamental to the branch of science called geodesy, which seeks to measure Earth's shape and gravity field, and how they change over time.

To make these measurements, the global science community established the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. This reference frame is used for ground navigation and for tracking spacecraft in Earth orbit. It is also used to monitor many aspects of global climate change, including sea level rise and its sources; imbalances in ice mass at Earth's poles; and the continuing rebound of Earth's surface following the retreat of the massive ice sheets that blanketed much of Earth during the last Ice Age.

But measuring changes in Earth's size hasn't exactly been easy for scientists to quite literally "get their arms around." After all, they can't just wrap a giant tape measure around Earth's belly to get a definitive reading. Fortunately, the field of high-precision space geodesy gives scientists tools they can use to estimate changes in Earth's radius. These include:

Satellite laser ranging -- a global observation station network that measures, with millimeter-level precision, the time it takes for ultrashort pulses of light to travel from the ground stations to satellites specially equipped with retroreflectors and back again.

Very-long baseline interferometry -- a radio astronomy technology that combines observations of an object made simultaneously by many telescopes to simulate a telescope as big as the maximum distance between the telescopes.

Global Positioning System -- the U.S.-built space-based global navigation system that provides users around the world with precise location and time information.
Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite -- a French satellite system used to determine satellite orbits and positioning. Beacons on the ground emit radio signals that are received by satellites. The movement of the satellites causes a frequency shift of the signal that can be observed to determine ground positions and other information.

Scientists use all these techniques to calculate the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. Central to the reference frame is its point of origin: the precise location of the average center of mass of the total Earth system (the combination of the solid Earth and the fluid envelope of ocean, ice and atmosphere that surrounds it, around which all Earth satellites orbit). Scientists currently determine this origin point based on a quarter century of satellite laser ranging data, considered the most accurate space geodetic tool for this purpose.

But the accuracy of the satellite laser ranging data and all existing space geodesy technologies is contaminated, both by the effects of other major Earth processes, and limited ground measurement sites. Think of it this way: if all of Earth's GPS stations were located in Norway, their data would indicate that Earth is growing, because high-latitude countries like Norway are still rising in elevation in response to the removal of the weight of Ice Age ice sheets. So how can scientists be sure the reference frame is accurate?

Enter an international group of scientists led by Xiaoping Wu of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and including participants from the Institut Geographique National, Champs-sur-Marne in France, and Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. The team set out to independently evaluate the accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame and shed new light on the Earth expansion/contraction theory.

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Alan Buis/Whitney Clavin (818) 354-0474/354-4673
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
alan.d.buis@jpl.nasa.gov / whitney.clavin@jpl.nasa.gov

2011-254

User avatar
spark
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by spark » Mon Dec 12, 2022 5:47 am

The possible reason moon is drifting away from earth 3.8 centimeters every year is due to earth is expanding in volume (not mass) by 2.5 centimeters at the ridges every year. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/f0/a1 ... 1877ca.jpg

The more the earth expands in volume, the more charge/capacitance earth is able to hold (charge is received from the Sun), resulting in slight increase in gravity electrically over long period of time without requiring significant increase in mass, according to Fredrik Nygaard. That is how earths gravity increased from mars-like gravity and radius few hundred million years ago when dinosaurs walked the earth to current gravity and radius.

https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpr ... expansion/
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpr ... culations/

allynh
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:51 pm

This concept makes sense, when you take it along with the Green Sahara discussion we have had in the past.

Lost Roman Map has ATLANTIS at Eye of Sahara Africa! (Richat Structure)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo_fMcSLp7Q

Re: Are the planets growing?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 50#p129001

This latest makes the whole concept of Atlantis and what happened during the Younger-Dryas, Netflix Hancock Ancient Apocalypse, to be rather terrifying.

allynh
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Dec 27, 2022 10:58 pm

The video discussing North Africa and finding Atlantis is very disturbing. It made me start questioning "consensus" about "sea level" rising or falling.

When people talk about "sea level" rising, I always ask:

- Did "sea level" rise or did the "coastline" sink.

Now, that opens up the question that I never thought to ask:

- Did "sea level" fall or did the "coastline" rise.

Whenever they noticed that the continental shelf along Europe was 400 feet below "sea level" they made the "assumption" that "sea level" had changed all over the world.

- That was a mistake.

From that "mistake" they had to ask where did the water go, so they invented the concept of an "ice age" where all that water gathered as ice sheets, two miles thick, on the northern continents. That implies an "ice age", and they created vast narratives about the "ice age".(1)

I'm betting that "sea level" has been static for 100k years.

- No "sea level" rise = no "ice age".

Look at the wiki entry for:

Continental Shelf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf

and look at the two maps they have:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... O_2014.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... system.gif

The second map has the continental shelf stand out clearly as the "red" areas.

Notice, there are many areas around the continents that have small continental shelves and others that have large continental shelves.

Look at the west side of South America, the continental shelf seems very narrow. But if you look at the coast, that strip of dry land is the continental shelf, sitting high and dry above "sea level".(2)

- That is the inconsistency that has always nagged me about the "consensus" narrative.

It's obvious that some "coastlines" sank and some rose, and that the "sea level" stayed the same. That seems far more likely to me than the concept of 400 feet of water being lifted onto the continents as sheets of ice.

That changes everything.

(1) I also remember the Buache map showing Antarctica ice free. So how could Antarctica be ice free during the "ice age" in the northern hemisphere.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifac ... ice-005647

(2) I remember reading that Darwin, on his voyages, saw along the west coast of South America a line of shells that was far above "sea level", and that line of shells looked "recent", (whatever recent meant to him).

That has always nagged at me.

moonkoon
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:37 am

rock solid explanation needed

Unread post by moonkoon » Fri Jan 06, 2023 12:47 pm

From the article posted by allynh above...
The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
The sub-millimeter precision of the coordination of the rates of ridge spreading/detachment faulting with the rates of subduction/thrust faulting is an inexplicable tectonic miracle. :-)
What feedback mechanism keeps the two unrelated processes in lockstep over hundreds/thousands of millions of years?

And given that sea level does not seem to have varied by more than a few hundred meters over the eons, the balancing of upwelling water with the water entrained by subduction is another conundrum to be sorted out. Fairly constant sea level also suggests that mantle water may not have a surface origin.

allynh
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:01 am

This is an interesting video I stumbled across.

Randall & Tucker Carlson 1st Meeting - Introduces the Younger Dryas Mystery, Frozen Buried Mammoth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY2zsdTbKfQ

I do not see how the change in Weather that Randall Carlson is talking about would wipe out the Megafauna. The size target is too specific. This has to indicate that the Earth Grew in a brief time, rather than just habitat loss. That would not explain the giant sloths dying in South America where it was warm.

johnm33
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:43 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by johnm33 » Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:44 pm

All the fish fossils are on land or the continental shelves, aren't they? That sugests a lot more water than before, perhaps a whole Pacifics worth.

Post Reply