Conspiracy of Science: Earth is in fact growing

[AlexanderLight]

I've heard of this theory about a couple of years now and many claim it answers a lot of of the old questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

The Pangea Theory: A Big Deception!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iW5HUrEkc8&feature=related

Why the Pangea Theory is Inaccurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA&feature=related

Why Dinosaurs Extinct:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdavRmR-2YE&feature=related

Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense, but I am curious to know what do you think of it and why.

[Sidney]

Makes sense to me too.

[GlassSteagallfan]

Interesting! Where does all the water come from? Shouldn't it all be dry land?

[Pete]

Good point, the water must have been pretty deep all over the planet and as the planet stretched out the water would have gradually drained into the lower areas exposed. hence the sea creature fossils on top of mountains. If this is the case what is inside the earth blowing it up?

[Operator]

Interesting! Where does all the water come from? Shouldn't it all be dry land?

I've heard a theory and seen a documentary (can't remember the URL) that earth will receive water from space under influence of radiation.
We're in a special position again to receive this extra radiation ... earth will experience it as extra precipitation.

Well that does ring a bell doesn't it ? All cultures have some kind of deluge myth ... :eek:

[aranuk]

I was thinking the same asyou GS. Where did it come from?



Stan

[ThePythonicCow]

Somewhere several years ago (I forget now where) I first read of the expanding earth theory. It made sense then to me, and it still makes sense. The first video in Post #1 is the best presentation of it I've seen. Awesome!

As that video says, it changes physics, down to the sub-atomic level. That's one reason, of many, that I find Paul LaViolette's subquantum kinetics (SQK) to be so compelling. SQK explains how mass and energy are created, wherever gravity is strong enough, including in the middle of the earth. This is not atomic fusion or fission, by which atoms split and join and release energy. This is the creation of more mass and energy, forming from the underlying ether.

The physics of relativity and quantum mechanics are replaced. The cosmology of the Big Bang is completely rewritten. The underlying mechanisms that cause gravitational and electromagnetic fields are explained. The physics of "Free Energy" are explained.

This is one of the (many no doubt) stories that "change everything."

So it cannot be told.

But now it is being told, in Post #1 above.

Awesome.

Some details:


It might be that the larger dinosaurs died out because gravity increased, as the earth expanded. The long and heavy necks and tails of some large dinosaurs could not be supported in our earth's current gravity.

Mass is, I believe, being created in the core of the earth. This likely includes simply hydrocarbons, providing an essentially inexhaustible supply of combustible gas from deep underground. If the amount of water on this planet is increasing, it might account for that as well.

Not all the earth's energy comes from the sun. A substantial portion of it is generated internally, out of the underlying and omni-present ether. That's why the earth's core is hotter than it's surface, not cooler.

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Pete]

Mass is, I believe, being created in the core of the earth. This likely includes simply hydrocarbons, providing an essentially inexhaustible supply of combustible gas from deep underground. If the amount of water on this planet is increasing, it might account for that as well.

Not all the earth's energy comes from the sun. A substantial portion of it is generated internally, out of the underlying and omni-present ether. That's why the earth's core is hotter than it's surface, not cooler.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Very interesting, Lindsey williams was quoted as saying that oil is not a fossil fuel that it is produced from within the planet, it is inorganic. He was discussing peak oil and the fact that there was a lot more oil than was quoted by the data. I even checked it up on wikipedia at the time and saw it confirmed, strangely I have just re-checked to confirm my point and I cannot find the quote. I know I have seen it in the past.

That said there could well be some truth in what you propose.

[eric charles]

Wow this is something really interesting , an absolutely total different point of view , very cool

[Ruby L.]

Thanks for the introduction to the theory, AlexanderLight. It's the first time I've heard of it, and it's very, very interesting. Food to expand this mind, indeed!

[Etherios]

i dont understand why this will shake the science community ... can anyone thing of why?

[Operator]

Thanks for the introduction to the theory, AlexanderLight. It's the first time I've heard of it, and it's very, very interesting. Food to expand this mind, indeed!

Well his reputation is much disputed but Clif High is talking about it for quite a while now. It's a fixed part of his reports now.

[DouglasDanger]

Good point, the water must have been pretty deep all over the planet and as the planet stretched out the water would have gradually drained into the lower areas exposed. hence the sea creature fossils on top of mountains. If this is the case what is inside the earth blowing it up?

I ron and metals continue to expand as they are heated... earth feels like it was moved into position so the suns heat would then expand it over time....

[13th Warrior]

If the Earth is expanding, wouldn't the days gradually get longer and this should be verifiable...

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[ThePythonicCow]

i dont understand why this will shake the science community ... can anyone thing of why?

"Modern day" physics has no way to account for energy and mass being created inside a planet or star. It postulates that all the matter, energy and order of the Universe were created in one "miraculous" Big Bang, and now we're just "running out the clock", as the total mass plus energy remains constant, and the order (entropy) decays.

Planets might accrete some material from meteor collisions, but that would add more mass to the surface, not from within the earth, as required to cause it to expand like a balloon. Nothing in "modern" physics or cosmology really explains the steadily increasing core mass and the hot, energetic core energies, of planet earth.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


If the Earth is expanding, wouldn't the days gradually get longer and this should be verifiable...

Yes - I expect that is so.

[ThePythonicCow]

I ron and metals continue to expand as they are heated... earth feels like it was moved into position so the suns heat would then expand it over time....The linear coefficient of expansion of iron, at room temperature, is about 10 parts per million per degree Celsius. To double in length, if this property were constant with temperature (it's not), the iron temperature would have to raise (a million divided by ten) 100,000 degrees C.

The temperature of the earth's core is thought to be about 5,000 degrees C, which is much less than 100,000 degrees C.

So iron expansion does not seem to come close to explaining this.

For that matter, if the earth received all its heat energy from the sun, why is the core the hottest part, not the surface?

[Operator]

If the Earth is expanding, wouldn't the days gradually get longer and this should be verifiable...

The length of the day is determined by its rotation around its axis ... the speed at the surface near the equator would become higher but
that doesn't determine the length of a day. The funny thing is that if you move faster through space you will experience it as time speeding
up. And isn't that the case at the moment ?

But there is another physical effect too. Look at ice dancers ... if they turn their pirouettes it makes a difference when they keep their hands
and arms close to their bodies. So if I remember correctly a body will turn slower when the mass is distributed outward.

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Kamikaze]

delete it all.

[cloud9]

I also learned about this theory 2 years ago and it makes a lot of sense to me, regarding the water thing, I would say the water is being created as needed just as new species appearing when others are extinguishing.

Sometimes I wonder if the ice is melting at the poles, we haven't seen yet a rise in ocean levels, same for glaciers everywhere. Also, the only problem I see with the growing earth theory is that I don't see Atlantis or Lemuria in it. Where did they go?

One explanation could be that they went under the water when the big cracks on the bottom of the oceans opened a little more but still it seems there are no remains of them. Something to think about....

[Pete]

may be its a simply a bubble, the crust prevents the gas from escaping and the molten nature of the core simply heals the expansion as and when it occurs a bit like a loaf of bread rising in the oven.

[G.A]

The theory in this video makes a whole lot of "common sense". If I grew up learning this theory in school, and if someone told me later that our modern day theory is really the case - I would likely think they are loony. After all, everything else I observe on the planet starts small and grows bigger. Not to mention the stretch marks on the ocean floor. Most of us know about stretch marks quite personally! Why not the planet itself?

We may or may not be able to observe the earth still growing. It could have stopped growing at some point like all things we observe on the planet.

Modern day science/physics has opened doors to more questions than it is has been able to answer. Unfortunately those very questions threaten everything that is fundamental to our current understanding of things. And we all know what happens when a person's ego is on the line!

[Lord Sidious]

For that matter, if the earth received all its heat energy from the sun, why is the core the hottest part, not the surface?

That would have to be one of the most thought provoking questions I ever saw on this forum.
Excellent question nugget.
Or is that bovinenugget? :p

[Kamikaze]

delete it all.

[ThePythonicCow]

is the iron core actually proven or is it still a theory?

Well, no one has gone down there to take a sample.

But a variety of indirect evidence, such as the earth's magnetic field, and seismograph readings from around the world of major earthquakes, all fit well with some sort of high iron content core.

[Adam Greenland]

I personally think all rocky planets expand, become gas giants, and eventually stars.

[13th Warrior]

This theory also states that there is no subduction; then can i infer that that statement says that all mountain ranges are of volcanic origin?

[ThePythonicCow]

This theory also states that there is no subduction; then can i infer that that statement says that all mountain ranges are of volcanic origin?

I didn't listen closely to the exact words, but I'd have figured "not much" subduction, so "mostly" volcanic (or erosion of higher plains.) I did hear them say something about the Himalayan Mountain range being pushed up (not sure the exact words) by colliding land masses.

[Magnus]

Mass, created from within.. This mass, could that also include crude oil being created from within as an ever ongoing process?

[13th Warrior]

This theory also states that there is no subduction; then can i infer that that statement says that all mountain ranges are of volcanic origin?

I didn't listen closely to the exact words, but I'd have figured "not much" subduction, so "mostly" volcanic (or erosion of higher plains.) I did hear them say something about the Himalayan Mountain range being pushed up (not sure the exact words) by colliding land masses.


At the end of the first video posted the narrator says that you can't have it both ways; you either have spreading and subduction or you have just spreading. He also references Mars and states emphatically that there is no subduction...

[ThePythonicCow]

Mass, created from within.. This mass, could that also include crude oil being created from within as an ever ongoing process?
Yes, I suspect it could. I'd guess this would be a series of reactions, starting with hydrogen atoms, then from them carbon atoms. then chemically bonding them into simple hydrocarbons, then more complex hydrocarbons.

[58andfixed]

There is a growing acceptance of the idea.

Neal Adams is on Coast to Coast AM regularly talking about more details.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2006/03/16

Neal has a number of very good videos for people to assess his thesis here:

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Neal Adams is a cartoon artist.

I would highly recommend testing the ideas against some solid orthodox science, such as Mark A.S. McMenamin's "The Garden of Ediacara."

http://www.uv.es/pe/1999_1/books/mcmenami.htm

http://www.uv.es/pe/1999_1/books/mcmenami.gif

"Reviewed by Ben Waggoner, Department of Biology, University of Central Arkansas."

The test of time, collaborative critical thinking and additional narratives that are sustained by valid evidence from the broadest spectrum will determine the resolution to this relative newcomer to understanding this planet.

- 58





... but Clif High is talking about it for quite a while now. It's a fixed part of his reports now.

[Fred Steeves]

Planets might accrete some material from meteor collisions, but that would add more mass to the surface, not from within the earth, as required to cause it to expand like a balloon. Nothing in "modern" physics or cosmology really explains the steadily increasing core mass and the hot, energetic core energies, of planet earth.[COLOR="red"]


Pardon me if this comes across as ignorant, because I just now scanned through this thread and have not watched the videos. What you're talking about here Paul is somewhat similar to the "expanding earth" that I've noticed. Wouldn't it seem logical that there is a constant barrage of minute matter hitting the earth, or any planet, and that would explain atleast why buildings only a couple or few hundred years old have to be excavated?

Also, I've been in the house we live in for 14 years, and our yard has gotten noticeably higher, as opposed to the driveway or the street.

I realize this may be a bit off of the original topic, and as I confessed I haven't seen the videos, but doesn't incoming matter make more sense in things getting buried, and therefore expanding the planet, than basically a beach ball getting more air?

I reckon it could also be both simultaneously.

Fred now prepares to watch a couple of videos, and quite possibly receive a science lesson when he gets up tomorrow morning.:)

Cheers,
Fred

[modwiz]

i dont understand why this will shake the science community ... can anyone thing of why?

I venture to say that the 'science' community is a bought and paid for controlled producer of 'facts' that prop up an agenda. This expansion theory moves away from a finite view of the planet. Scarcity, the holy grail of crony capitalism, is seriously weakened as a concept. It will shake the science community because they will be burdened with having to explain it away for their masters.

[58andfixed]

Another source of ideas to add to this mixing bowl: "The Core" BBC Horizon documentary.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhREYCs3vcc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhREYCs3vcc

58m 13,026 views

Posted September 1, 2011

"For centuries we have dreamt of reaching the center of the Earth. Now scientists are uncovering a bizarre and alien world that lies 4,000 miles beneath our feet, unlike anything we know on the surface."

"It is a planet buried within the planet we know, where storms rage within a sea of white-hot metal and a giant forest of crystals make up a metal core the size of the Moon."

*****

I'm fairly certain "The Core" has been discussed in other threads on PA.

- 58

[G.A]

For that matter, if the earth received all its heat energy from the sun, why is the core the hottest part, not the surface?

That would have to be one of the most thought provoking questions I ever saw on this forum.
Excellent question nugget.
Or is that bovinenugget? :p

The outer portions of the original molten earth started to cool and crust becoming the surface of the planet as we know it, and in doing so - the crust now acts as an insulator keeping the core temperature stable.

The earth may have originally been closer to the sun, birthed from a projectile explosion from a sun, the sun may have been hotter, or any number of potential explanations.

But I would assume the only significant heat energy we currently get from the core to the surface of the planet is via volcanic activity and other such incidents where pressurized heat escapes the core through nooks and crannies of the crust.

[G.A]

...
Pardon me if this comes across as ignorant, because I just now scanned through this thread and have not watched the videos. What you're talking about here Paul is somewhat similar to the "expanding earth" that I've noticed. Wouldn't it seem logical that there is a constant barrage of minute matter hitting the earth, or any planet, and that would explain atleast why buildings only a couple or few hundred years old have to be excavated?

Also, I've been in the house we live in for 14 years, and our yard has gotten noticeably higher, as opposed to the driveway or the street.

I realize this may be a bit off of the original topic, and as I confessed I haven't seen the videos, but doesn't incoming matter make more sense in things getting buried, and therefore expanding the planet, than basically a beach ball getting more air?
...


Considering we don't really know the source of matter, your guess is as good as any.

I know most small matter coming in from space is disintegrated and burned up as it makes its way through our atmosphere. Our weather system is pretty good at moving loose surfaces around from one place to another. It wouldn't take much time to lose a village beneath sand when wind is the force at work. Politics of the earth dictate redistribution of land!

Seems you have been stealing your neighbors' backyards without knowing it ;) You do mention the backyard (loose earth) is growing versus the driveway not (assumingly not loose; concrete, asphalt, etc).

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[ThePythonicCow]

I realize this may be a bit off of the original topic, and as I confessed I haven't seen the videos, but doesn't incoming matter make more sense in things getting buried, and therefore expanding the planet, than basically a beach ball getting more air?

I reckon it could also be both simultaneously.

The first video in the first post of this thread is really good! You should watch it :)!

The major movements of the continents show strong evidence that the earth is expanding.

Yes, simultaneously, earth near the surface moves about. Soil is removed from some places via erosion (e.g. the Grand Canyon) and volcanic activity (ejecting some of the mantel into the atmosphere), and it is added other places (e.g. your yard.) But that's rather minor compared to the whole ball getting bigger, from the inside out.

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Karma Ninja]

Matter from space would accumulate over time and would absolutely add up to something significant over the life of our planet. Even the stuff that burns up would leave behind gases and matter which would settle down into our oceans and the earth.

As well I have read how comets can have tails composed mostly of water and this could explain the presence of water on earth and many other planetary bodies, as we are now discovering. (read: acknowledging) Near collisions with comets or comets tails could explain all of the water found on our planet.

This theory is interesting in its simplicity and I am a fan of Occam's Razor so I love it when something like this comes along. I had heard of this theory but never looked into it. Thanks as always to the Avalon community for making sure nothing escapes our attention.

[Seikou-Kishi]

Lol, I love how when he says "Great Britain" he outlines England and Wales. There are probably a few Scottish people watching that feeling understandably disgruntled... and Norway's an island? Wow my geography must really be out of date.

The videos make so much sense to me, especially the dinosaur video

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Seikou-Kishi]

but i think people would put aside their nationalities when watching something like this... well at least I never take my own nationality under consideration; so who am i to judge? :P

To put it politely, the Scots dislike being viewed as a junior partner in the association. To put it less politely, it has only a tenth of the population of England and gets a bit of a Napoleon complex because of that (I don't want to annoy any Scots, but we like them a lot more than they think lol). You might forget your Canadian, I might forget I'm English and British, but you could bet your bottom farthing he hasn't forgotten lol... though quite what a country means when it's all shmushed together is anybody guess... I'd say it's like looking for the flour in a cake... oh you know it's in there, but good look finding it lol

[Laurel]

This is a great theory, but I am still confused about a couple things.

First, the mountain formation was not clearly explained. One of the videos mentioned land folding like a piece of cloth. If you have the top of the land folding into the bottom, something has to be holding the bottom in place. How is this possible if the earth is expanding uniformly?

Second, how does this theory explain earthquakes? Why are the plates sliding against each other instead of spreading apart?

[bennycog]

i love this theory.. it just rings my bell

[58andfixed]

Accretion just during ones' life-time, while small, is instantly recognized by the quantity of meteors and comets we observe.

What about elements pushed along by Solar Wind or that 'foam zone' at the edge of our Solar System ?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110609-magnetic-bubbles-solar-system-nasa-space-science/

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/364/cache/gravity-bubbles-heliopause-universe_36472_600x450.jpg

There simply has to be an accumulation of material on the planets and moons over long periods of time.

I seem to recall how plate tectonics was not well discoursed in science, and now there has been quite an accumulation of answers to questions that began the process of discovery.

It seems to me this planet has been exposed to both processes of plate movement and accretion.

- 58




Matter from space would accumulate over time and would absolutely add up to something significant over the life of our planet.

Even the stuff that burns up would leave behind gases and matter which would settle down into our oceans and the earth.

[Operator]

Mass, created from within.. This mass, could that also include crude oil being created from within as an ever ongoing process?

Maybe it's not even so difficult to assume this is correct. Remember the double slit experiment (what the bleep do we know) ?
That experiment proves that particles can sometimes behave as a particle but also as a wave.

So what if planets (perhaps not all) have a core that is able to receive waves (radiated energy) and transform that into particles i.e. matter ?
It would prove that a planet like earth is more or less a tele-portation device ... At least it demonstrates the receiving end of it. :cool:

[Fred Steeves]

Hmm... something I thought off? Compare the rate of the moon going further away from the earth and the supposed rate of earth expansion?

Now there's a poser. Not to try and delve too far off topic, but if a technology far exceeding what most of us can fathom placed the moon in a precise orbit, then this little tidbit of information would have likely not been overlooked.

[Pete]

So what if planets (perhaps not all) have a core that is able to receive waves (radiated energy) and transform that into particles i.e. matter ?
It would prove that a planet like earth is more or less a tele-portation device ... At least it demonstrates the receiving end of it. :cool:[/QUOTE]

Now that is a very interesting thought, planets created by tele-portation, it would certainly explain the big bang and that matter was created instantaneously throughout the universe. It also brings to mind the idea of of cell division mentioned earlier. Delores Cannon explained her view of what is happening in a similar way to cell division, maybe the earth has reached that point where it can grow no further and needs to split from its 3rd dimensional incarnation. maybe from 1 becomes 2.

[Fred Steeves]

The videos make so much sense to me, especially the dinosaur video

Hey there Oliver, I had a bit of a question with the image of the dinosaurs being trapped on one side of the gorge caused by expansion. While I have as of yet no major problems with the expansion theory, it doesn't make sense to me why all the dinosaurs would have been trapped in unfortunate areas. If they were previously spread all across the planet, then why aren't atleast some still roaming about? Surely many others would have been trapped in ideal habitats all over the place.

If I'm missing something here, somebody please point it out.:)

[Fred Steeves]

Mass, created from within.. This mass, could that also include crude oil being created from within as an ever ongoing process?

Maybe it's not even so difficult to assume this is correct. Remember the double slit experiment (what the bleep do we know) ?
That experiment proves that particles can sometimes behave as a particle but also as a wave.

So what if planets (perhaps not all) have a core that is able to receive waves (radiated energy) and transform that into particles i.e. matter ?
It would prove that a planet like earth is more or less a tele-portation device ... At least it demonstrates the receiving end of it. :cool:

Now THAT'S an interesting prospect! Even if it's not true, that's the kind of outside the box thinking required for such subjects.

[Muzz]

Great vids, thanks. Theres also more info here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?12049-Expanding-Earth&highlight=Expanding+Earth) for those interested.

And heres James Maxlow giving a presentation on the subject

_f6hcGJbjL0

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/images/JamesFig1.JPG

[13th Warrior]

Hmm... something I thought off? Compare the rate of the moon going further away from the earth and the supposed rate of earth expansion?

I'm posting as a memory check; correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the moon leaving Earths orbit at a rate of 6 inches a year?

[13th Warrior]

Perhaps this expanding Earth theory is another way of stating that the Earth is moving into higher densities; which is a missnomer i should say, if the Earth is expanding it is most likely loosing density as i wouldn't expect it to be gaining more mass.

A more massive Earth would have a different gravitational field strength; a constant mass that is expanding would be less dense thus a continuous gravitational field.

[lake]

Hmm... something I thought off? Compare the rate of the moon going further away from the earth and the supposed rate of earth expansion?

I'm posting as a memory check; correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the moon leaving Earths orbit at a rate of 6 inches a year?

Maybe this thread can in time give me an answer to a question regarding the moon.

If the moon is moving away from the Earth how can it be said that the reason we only see one side is because the gravity of the Earth slowed the rotation of the moon over time? You cant have it both ways!
Either the gravitational effect of the Earth is enough to slow the spin of the moon and keep it in place (or even bring it closer) or the opposite would be true? :confused:

[Seikou-Kishi]

The videos make so much sense to me, especially the dinosaur video

Hey there Oliver, I had a bit of a question with the image of the dinosaurs being trapped on one side of the gorge caused by expansion. While I have as of yet no major problems with the expansion theory, it doesn't make sense to me why all the dinosaurs would have been trapped in unfortunate areas. If they were previously spread all across the planet, then why aren't atleast some still roaming about? Surely many others would have been trapped in ideal habitats all over the place.

If I'm missing something here, somebody please point it out.:)

The problem is dinosaurs were migratory; if things were ideal in one place throughout the year, then they would have no need to migrate at all. The most likely example of this is a very warm place might be too dry in summer and a very wet place might be too cold in winter. If the migration route were cut off, they would either be trapped in a place that would quickly become too dry and they'd die of thirst (and overheating, since exotherms are as bad at cooling their body as warming it), or they'd be trapped in a place that would become too cold and they'd die of heat loss.

Of course, this idea overlooks two small problems: the first is that land change can only affect the dinosaurs themselves, considering that dinosaurs were a universally terrestrial superorder, but there were parallel classes in the sea and air (which likewise went extinct and which were overlooked in this video), which, presumably, wouldn't be so disturbed by a shift in geography (unless, and I consider this a very weak idea, the land moved so far apart the flying reptiles like the pterosauria could physically fly far enough..., and since a great number of them fed mainly on fish which ostensibly did survive, we can rule out a loss of food) though sea-based reptiles might be disturbed by the loss of the oceanic currents which, conceivably, would take some time to readjust following a shift in the shape of the sea, though why this uniquely effected the sea reptiles of the cretaceous period and none of the fish I could only guess at.

It is already said by mainstream science that when the oceanic currents died and stopped transporting oxygen from the surface of the ocean(s) to the ocean floor for all animals to breathe, there would have been a mass-extinction of ocean life and the rotting of all the dead bodies, uneaten by macroscopic life, would have putrefied and caused the water to become acidic, but the fish must be considered to suffer more in such an event since they breathe from the water whereas sea reptiles would, like modern day crocodilia and all sea mammals, breathe above the surface.

I cannot satisfactorily explain away these problems, and I had to ask myself, consequently, why I considered this argument still had merit but when I think how the current model the extinction of the dinosaurs and similar water- and air-borne reptiles is explained away by mainstream science as "by a meteor or a volcano or something", I believe the model presented here has at least as much merit as the mainstream version :-)

[58andfixed]

Well, it seems there is more to add to this very interesting pot.

This Urantia Book brought up on PA recently here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30314-The-Urantia-Book&p=310676&viewfull=1#post310676), [and other places] has this to say on Page 658, in Section III titled "The History of Urantia," and Chapter 57 titled The Origin of Urantia" :

"3,000,000,000 years ago the solar system was functioning much as it does today. Its members continued to grow in size as space meteors continued to pour in upon the planets and their satellites at a prodigious rate."

"2,500,000,000 years ago the planets had grown immensely in size. Urantia was a well-developed sphere about one tenth its present mass and was still growing rapidly by meteoric accretion."

The publisher's site (http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online) is down at times, and their search (http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/search) function isn't always up and running.

*****

I had to acquire a few extra other books to assist with the vetting process of this book. It appears that the content was compiled from 1915 to 1947/48-ish, was pretty much ready to print around 1950-ish, yet with-held from final printing until 1955.

Some chat boards and web-sites say it was channeled, yet "A history of the Urantia Papers" by Larry Mullins (http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm) & Meredith Justin Sprunger indicate a far more interesting process.

Martin Gardiner, a well known skeptic, took on the Urantia Book, yet offers one of the weakest arguments I've ever discovered in any of his issues of skepticism. This publication of Martin Gardiner is so uncharacteristic of his high standard of discourse.

The material in this book constantly side-swipes me with it's dense content, and the margins are full of my unanswered questions, so I urge caution to be sure.

In respect of the idea of the size of Earth changing over time, seems to go so much further back than seems to be implied, and I am humbled by the continued finding of yet more that I "didn't even know that I didn't know."

- 58

[13th Warrior]

Well, it seems there is more to add to this very interesting pot.

This Urantia Book brought up on PA recently here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30314-The-Urantia-Book&p=310676&viewfull=1#post310676), [and other places] has this to say on Page 658, in Section III titled "The History of Urantia," and Chapter 57 titled The Origin of Urantia" :

"3,000,000,000 years ago the solar system was functioning much as it does today. Its members continued to grow in size as space meteors continued to pour in upon the planets and their satellites at a prodigious rate."

"2,500,000,000 years ago the planets had grown immensely in size. Urantia was a well-developed sphere about one tenth its present mass and was still growing rapidly by meteoric accretion."

The publisher's site (http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/read-urantia-book-online) is down at times, and their search (http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/search) function isn't always up and running.

*****

I had to acquire a few extra other books to assist with the vetting process of this book. It appears that the content was compiled from 1915 to 1947/48-ish, was pretty much ready to print around 1950-ish, yet with-held from final printing until 1955.

Some chat boards and web-sites say it was channeled, yet "A history of the Urantia Papers" by Larry Mullins (http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm) & Meredith Justin Sprunger indicate a far more interesting process.

Martin Gardiner, a well known skeptic, took on the Urantia Book, yet offers one of the weakest arguments I've ever discovered in any of his issues of skepticism. This publication of Martin Gardiner is so uncharacteristic of his high standard of discourse.

The material in this book constantly side-swipes me with it's dense content, and the margins are full of my unanswered questions, so I urge caution to be sure.

In respect of the idea of the size of Earth changing over time, seems to go so much further back than seems to be implied, and I am humbled by the continued finding of yet more that I "didn't even know that I didn't know."

- 58

I also own the "Urantia Book" i will have to look up the page you sited...if my memory serves me correctly, it is stated that the books contents origin is of an unknown nature, although some suspect channeled and others extraterrestrial.


I will also add that this would confirm the Universal Theory of the Universe expanding and then contracting. If the Earth indeed had expanded in the past then it certainly has contracted, this could explain the geological evidence of magnetic pole shifts and could also account for the formation of mountain ranges due to subduction.

[58andfixed]

Hi 13th Warrior:

Of all the books I've vetted, this one is turning out to be the biggest challenge ever. I'm taking the wearing of a "fire suit," with my own oxygen pack, for this one.

It seems like everyone, their dogs, cats & chickens are struck by something from this book, and through the Internet offers everyone their slice of pizza to the buffet of beliefs. With this much heat, there's at least some smoke coming from this fire.

The Larry Mullins "History" seems to be much more precise on the origin, as an investigative journalist would be with details, while other prefer repeating "Chinese Whispers." Personally, I explored channeling through experience, and find fault with that process.

The addition of ideas that heretics to science are only now revealing, and make good sound & solid sense, having been put into final print 55 years ago in this book, only adds to the curiosity.

I've come across years ago someone who offered the idea that The Universe is far older than 16 Billion years, 'pulses' and isn't just expanding from a recent event, would also help to explain the current form we see through telescopes. Again, another idea that would have been difficult to imagine being explored 55 years ago. This book is further out than the Twilight Zone.

It may take years to pull apart this mystery and gain some degree of comfort with some agreeable reassembly of it.

The concepts at the beginning are without any doubt the most dense, yet coherent comprehension I could ever imagine of a First Source and Universe design.

- 58



I also own the "Urantia Book" i will have to look up the page you sited...if my memory serves me correctly, it is stated that the books contents origin is of an unknown nature, although some suspect channeled and others extraterrestrial.

I will also add that this would confirm the Universal Theory of the Universe expanding and then contracting.

If the Earth indeed had expanded in the past then it certainly has contracted, this could explain the geological evidence of magnetic pole shifts and could also account for the formation of mountain ranges due to abduction.