PDA

View Full Version : Is the Earth expanding?



betoobig
10th May 2017, 20:07
please bare with me in this one... does the earth grow?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Do gps have to be recaibrate becouse of this growth?

Bill Ryan
10th May 2017, 20:34
please bare with me in this one... does the earth grow?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Do gps have to be recaibrate becouse of this growth?

Well, this thread might as well go there! :bigsmile:

It sounds like a crazy idea, but David Wilcock's early insider source Daniel (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51752-Geoengineering-Chemtrails-HAARP-NWO-and-Time-Lines--the-Daniel-papers-) (real name known, a serious scientist with his own website on the net) told David, who told Kerry and myself, that the Earth was expanding, and this information was known to black ops scientists. (Why this would be kept classified was never stated.)

This was in early 2007, ten years ago, and I'd never heard the idea before. Since then, a number of websites, and clever videos like the one below, have appeared. It's interesting stuff. As best I know, the mechanism how this might work has never been satisfactorily explained, and it's hard for me to guess at what it might be.

(If the Earth was indeed somehow expanding, I believe it'd be so slowly — maybe even over 4.5 billion years — that no change would easily be detectable. GPS satellites would not encounter any issues.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

araucaria
10th May 2017, 20:45
See the post below. But beware: if the earth is expanding, the Schumann resonance should be decreasing. Since it is the speed of light (300,000 km/sec) divided by the earth's circumference (40,000 km), if the latter figure rose to say 50,000, the Schumann resonance would drop to 6.





3) There must be lots of evidence of "Chinese all over Europe" studying the welfare systems. Can anyone confirm this?

4) The earth's gravity is increasing...? Even minute variations would be detected by all sorts of ongoing experiments and measurements - wouldn't it?



More...

I lived in Switzerland for several years prior to 2011, and several times traveled extensively in Germany, France, Holland, and Italy. Prior to that, I lived in the UK for many years until 2005. I barely, if ever, saw any Chinese. Of course, that observation is not up to date.

On the other hand, the Earth may be very gradually increasing in size -- though I agree with your comment about sensitive magnetometers. If our gravity is changing, it's changing quite imperceptibly. David Wilcock's insider source 'Daniel' told David, who told us, that this was known on the 'inside' but for some reason was regarded as classified information. And the author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams, was also a (very intelligent!) proponent of the theory and helped it to gain ground for serious discussion.

Here's an animation:

http://www.dinox.org/wpimages/wpd2acefcf.gif

Here's a summary of the theory:

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

And here's a video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6z8p4lzDnk

There are around half a million Chinese in France, about 40% living in and around Paris, including in Europe's biggest Chinatown.
The CHinese like to congregate, which means you might see none, or you might see a lot.
ZMWg18-ANlg

The expanding earth theory is easily visualized by Neal Adams, who shows how its land mass would have fitted together near perfectly when it was 55% of its present size. There are other videos examining local details, and still others transposing the phenomenon to other planets.

7kL7qDeI05U

Nick Matkin
10th May 2017, 21:11
I'm not a geologist, so I don't know how unlikely an expanding earth would be, but I'd guess, very unlikely. However, the possibility of continental drift was ignored for decades simply because there was no plausible mechanism to drive it.

Oh, perhaps continental drift is still wrong if the world is expanding!

TargeT
10th May 2017, 21:39
who told Kerry and myself, that the Earth was expanding, and this information was known to black ops scientists. (Why this would be kept classified was never stated).

Here's my thought process on that one

The earth is expanding >> matter can be created (or more specifically LENR(aka cold fusion) is real)>> Scarcity is a completely false paradigm & thus all control structures fail.

I'd call that a good reason, I probably could back most of that up as well with some pretty compelling corroboration.

araucaria
11th May 2017, 06:24
An expanding earth fits in neatly and necessarily with Paul LaViolette’s theory whereby everything is growing, from the atom up, all the way through to galactic superclusters. A moon grows into a planet, a planet into a dwarf star, a dwarf star into a giant star etc. See this post:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73691-When-a-New-Soul-is-Born-Mechanics-of-Soul&p=863052&viewfull=1#post863052

Sunny-side-up
15th May 2017, 11:45
Did You Know That Earth Is Getting Lighter Every Day?

Earth is getting 50,000 tonnes lighter every year, even while 40,000 tonnes of space dust fall on our planet's surface during the same period. So, why are we losing so much weight? You will be surprised.
http://gizmodo.com/5882517/did-you-know-that-earth-is-getting-lighter-every-day

Tectonic inversion and subversion

What if the subversion for some reason slows?
There would be more uplift and so expansion, is this happening?
Might also result in sea levels raising?
If the Earth is getting lighter ever year dispite the falling matter from space, this might lead to less downward presure on the surface (Expansion)
Melting ice caps, another presure release on the crust, more expansion?
Less downward presure on crust might lead to less subversion?
I know not the mechanics but just my ideas.

betoobig
16th May 2017, 11:19
if earth is getting lighter while growing... how does it summ up to the equation???
Much love

TargeT
16th May 2017, 11:32
if earth is getting lighter while growing... how does it summ up to the equation???
Much love

must be mass coming from somewhere eh?

Conservation of energy tell us the earth is probably gaining mass, as we are constantly bombarded with "cosmic rays" (energy). Or maybe it's a net balance?

Bubu
16th May 2017, 23:23
good cases have been made for the earth, sun and other planets/moons to be hollow...
in that case its a question of expanding like a balloon/sphere

I dont know but volcanoes constantly bring landmass to the surface from beneath. volcanoes grows even beneath seas and some mountains used to be sea floor. so maybe its thinning while expanding like a balloon. upon reaching its peak growth it will take a pause before exploding to oblivion. Like everything grows and then die.

TargeT
16th May 2017, 23:26
I dont know but volcanoes constantly bring landmass to the surface. volcanoes grows even beneath seas and some mountains used to be sea floor. so maybe its thinning while expanding like a balloon.


Conservation of energy ;)

Oil wells refill when you go back and tap them after a few years....

I think matter very possibly IS being created with in the earth... and the earth growing because of it. it's certainly a good explanation for the gigantic dinosaurs that couldn't support their own weight on the current planet.

Bubu
16th May 2017, 23:33
I dont know but volcanoes constantly bring landmass to the surface. volcanoes grows even beneath seas and some mountains used to be sea floor. so maybe its thinning while expanding like a balloon.


Conservation of energy ;)

Oil wells refill when you go back and tap them after a few years....

I think matter very possibly IS being created with in the earth... and the earth growing because of it. it's certainly a good explanation for the gigantic dinosaurs that couldn't support their own weight on the current plane.

If we are constantly bombarded by energies from the sun then yes matter is created since matter primarily is energy.

Justplain
16th May 2017, 23:57
Conservation of matter and energy tends to discount the idea that the Earth is gaining mass. However, an insider (cant remember his name) on one of the Bases interviews said the Earth was gaining mass, i believe he said growing. If this is the case, as Bill says this would have to be extremely slow, how else would long living life forms adapt to the gravity change?

If the Earth is growing, expanding or losing mass, then this process is following principles not identified in modern physics, though that's not saying much cuz modern mainstream physics cant explain dark matter either, let alone anti-gravity or zero point energy. MS science had great difficulty in explaining how bumblebees fly until they got really technical in their analysis.

This topic is probably nearly impossible to confirm one way or another given our knowledge in the mainstream. Even if an insider can across with more meat on this issue it would likely be very hard to verify.

TargeT
17th May 2017, 00:34
If the Earth is growing, expanding or losing mass, then this process is following principles not identified in modern physics

Not modern popular physics... no.. but still modern physics:

Actually, LENR explains it very neatly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion)... (aka "cold fusion"). In my mind that's a reality; I've read enough that I'm convinced anyway. ;)

araucaria
17th May 2017, 11:20
Did You Know That Earth Is Getting Lighter Every Day?
Neale Adam’s timescale for the creation of the oceans is 180-200 million years.

GT7USV_HZdw

If the Earth is getting lighter as well as bigger, that would mean its density is decreasing, which would be compatible with LaViolettte’s theory of slow evolution in the direction of a gas giant. This is also incidentally in line with Law of One terminology whereby other ‘dimensions’ are described as different ‘densities’. Hence expansion might be the physical component of spiritual evolution. I would expect that another component of this process might be radiation of light, which in my limited understanding may have zero mass and still have weight (gravitational effects). Radiation/radiance: at some stage, a planet – and maybe also a human – becomes a net exporter of light.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1395

TargeT
17th May 2017, 11:37
Well, the earth is not hollow, and there's no 'internal sun'.

We can do Reflection Seismology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_seismology) to amazing depths. We effectively "know" the earth is (for the vast majority) solid.

H6FPfGe9lIo

Hervé
17th May 2017, 11:55
As for how realistic that idea [expanding Earth] is, check these posts: here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71341-Bad-Science-Plate-Tectonics&p=833338&viewfull=1#post833338) (<--- and follow up on that thread) and here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?84708-The-Expanding-Earth-Expanding-Consciousness-Theory-Neal-Adams-The-Growing-Earth&p=992048&viewfull=1#post992048) (<--- and follow up on that thread).

bluestflame
18th May 2017, 11:21
it's HOW the earth is expanding that's the real pearl ...filled from within

Bill Ryan
18th May 2017, 14:06
@betoobig, I appreciate you're a nice person, and always mean well, but you've driven the original thread off topic twice now. :)

I've moved 13 posts talking about the 'Hollow Earth' to a different existing thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?4030-Hollow-Earth), where that discussion belongs.

:focus:

Ewan
18th May 2017, 17:25
I really don't have much to add to this thread other than a broad perspective, or viewpoint, gleaned through my own process of learning - which has been slow, as a tortoise; but perhaps the lessons learned are more salient that way?

I do not find it easy to dismiss this theory. Unlike 'hollow' or 'flat' earths there is something that 'feels' plausible/possible about this - in a vague kind of way it intrigues me.

I believe it was TargeT that first brought http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html to my attention. As a 'permanent layman'* I found it quite intriguing. Would a (relatively) smaller planet with a lower gravity have been more conducive to the existence of Megafauna? Perhaps a college professor of 'dinosaurs' (sorry, paleontology) would be apoplectic reading the aformentioned link, but we see time and time again that it is those who have the most invested in a belief system that are the most vociferous in deriding/denying an alternate perspective/theory.

I'm not convinced we fully understand the criteria for gravity or its relation to the size/mass of a planetary body just because we have an observational theory that seems to hold true. By the same respect I don't believe we fully understand the geological processes of our current abode. (No disrespect intended Hervé, it is perfectly understandable that you would present the commonly accepted science as it is today).

The quantum sciences have matter appearing from 'nowhere' - and disappearing back to who 'knows where'. The electric universe theory is a radically different idea to the one that is generally held to be true but hints at some very interesting interconnections.

I see a connection between these last two raised points and many spiritual musings, perhaps that makes them more attractive to me. My very nature rails against the establishment and established theory so I am not perhaps the best person to judge the possible veracity of such due to my predilections. Nevertheless I feel there is a distinct possibility there is something to this.

*NB: What is a 'permanent layman'?
The opposite of an expert is the best answer I can give, hopefully you understand - like the 'full cup' overflows, it can accept no more.

Hervé
18th May 2017, 18:37
[...]
... (No disrespect intended Hervé, it is perfectly understandable that you would present the commonly accepted science as it is today).
[...]
Ewan, I really cannot let that characterization of "accepted science" go by: if it has to be "accepted" it is NOT science... of course, then, one would have to understand the actual science.

My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.

... and subduction zones actually do exist as demonstrated by the 3D plotting of earthquake foci/hypocenters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocenter):


[[...]
... seismological data and the motion mechanism at earthquake rupture points (the "beach ball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_mechanism)" graphs) are all in strong support of the subduction of oceanic slabs at continental margins affected by such series of earthquakes:


http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/vdivener/notes/subd_zone.gif

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/slab/#models


Oceanic slab mapping under Japan:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/slab/images/kur_slab1.jpg

Kamchatka/Kurils/Japan http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/slab/images/kur_slab1.jpg
Circles indicate recorded earthquakes and the lines indicate their depth of occurrence.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/slab/maps.php





So, once again and as with earth internal layering, one would need a minimum, basic understanding of seismology, seismic waves and earthquakes in order to comprehend the implications derived from such... like subducted oceanic slabs under continental margins.


[...]
... there is a problem of rate of expansion (earth's volume increase) versus rate of subductions.

That, because we have active subduction zones (Pacific Rim of Fire) and passive "margins" (Peri-Atlantic) with accretion of newly formed oceanic crusts at both main Mid Oceanic Ridges (Pacific and Atlantic).

The thing with subduction zones, is that they are also responsible for the formation of the Andes, Rockies, Cascades, etc... indicating that these subduction zones have been active for a very long while and are seemingly increasing in activity.

My point of contention is that the rate of accretion at Mid Oceanic Ridges is entirely accommodated with the rate of subduction at active margins. That is, what appears at Oceanic Ridges disappears at subduction zones. An earth expansion scenario would imply that what appears at Oceanic Ridges [far outdoes] what disappears at subduction zones.

In other words, were there an earth expansion, i.e. increase in diameter/overall surface/volume, there would be a large discrepancy between accretion at Mid Oceanic Ridges and dissipation of oceanic crust at subduction zones and earth crust would keep cracking open, sea level would drop from being thinned out, etc.

That is, subductions would be less and less active, Andes and Rockies would flatten from not being constantly and continuously fed by new oceanic material being subducted and melted, overthrusting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrust) would stop and compressional (tectonic) earthquakes would decrease to rare occurrences, etc...

In short, if there is indeed such a thing as an expansion of earth diameter/overall surface/volume, such would have to be infinitesimal compared to subduction rates at active margins (Pacific Rim) to match current data (volcanic and tectonic activities).

On the other hand, if there were a contraction, subduction rates would be exacerbated/amplified at active margin, earthquakes would increase in number and magnitude, sea level would "rise," etc...

TargeT
18th May 2017, 19:12
My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.

... and subduction zones actually do exist as demonstrated by the 3D plotting of earthquake foci/hypocenters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocenter):


Sort of seems like that train of thought is ignoring the additional mass /water (what ever is actually added, if it is indeed expanding.. I assume "rock" would be one of the lesser gains); as far as available materials go it seems like it would be easy to make water (hOh),, I imagine water is "made" at a rate slightly more rapid than oil(hydrocarbon chain HcHcHcHcHcHcHc), etc etc.

I don't see why both couldn't exist, plus I think "earth expansion" and Subduciton are moving at vastly different speeds (subduction being far more rapid and noticeable.. "expansion" taking millions of years for noticeable gain due to the fairly low level (yet high volume) of incoming energy.

But then, these are just random thoughts in my head, not much to back them up.

Hervé
18th May 2017, 19:44
Right... which leaves my point unaddressed as a rebuttal to that expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984)... which shows an enormous increase in volume in a (geologically) very short time span... I can see it now in the headlines of the future: "The science of Global War... the 'Expanding Earth' is now settled! Anyone disagreeing is lying to you!"

I guess this is all part of "Education (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94832-Flat-Earth-Psychological-Operations&p=1152716&viewfull=1#post1152716)."

araucaria
18th May 2017, 20:01
Hervé’s post #21:

My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.
This is not correct. Any effect can have more than one cause, and subduction zones can very well exist with an expanding earth. My house was built with mechanical ventilation calibrated to cope with the volumes of air it contains, but I still sometimes need to open a window. And my vegetable patch receives more water in summer than falls out of the sky. Likewise, scientists who accept the existence of subduction zones are not all satisfied that there are enough of them to do the job and if they haven’t heard of expanding earth theories, they are searching for a mechanism to explain what they are seeing.

The volume of crust generated at ocean ridges is supposed to be equalled by the volume subducted. But the ocean ridge system is allegedly producing new crust along a total length of 2 x 74,000 km, whereas there are about 43,500 km of trenches and 9000 km of “collision zones” – or a third of the amount of “spreading centres”.
How ocean crust can be thrust down into the denser mantle has never been satisfactorily explained. An analysis of the mechanics of subduction suggests that it could probably never have started, let alone continued (James, 2000). http://www.davidpratt.info/lowman.htm

There is nothing strange about this: on the contrary, it is a prerequisite of a growing system as opposed to a stable one. And it would seem to characterize a system that has been growing already for some time. For while a baby will invest its mother’s milk mostly in putting on pounds and inches, a teenager will split his healthy appetite into growing and other equally important things such as physical activities and running after girls. :)
Addition in response to post #23: before we get to future headlines, let’s accept that the science of subduction is not settled.

Hervé
18th May 2017, 20:30
My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.


which leaves my point unaddressed as a rebuttal to that expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984)

Oh, my... no wonder threads get derailed in a blink of an eye... never following the topic or a train of thought...

TargeT
18th May 2017, 21:15
Right... which leaves my point unaddressed as a rebuttal to that expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984)... which shows an enormous increase in volume in a (geologically) very short time span...

I don't recall a timeline attached to that, in my mind that representation took 5 billion years or so.

Hervé
18th May 2017, 21:30
Right... which leaves my point unaddressed as a rebuttal to that expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984)... which shows an enormous increase in volume in a (geologically) very short time span...

I don't recall a timeline attached to that, in my mind that representation took 5 billion years or so.

That's what your mind ended up with... but if that mind of yours give it a listen, there is a mention of 65 million years ago...

TargeT
18th May 2017, 21:51
there is a mention of 65 million years ago...

"65 million years ago, and more"

You can't leave off the "and more"

7kL7qDeI05U

;)

But 3 min is kinda short for a theory like this..

Here's an interview:
5ZC22-IU7qI

Hervé
18th May 2017, 22:12
Let's start from what we do know: subduction zones and subducted oceanic slabs do exist... and I am not gonna argue anything else about this subject.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg/300px-2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg)
Colors indicate the age of oceanic lithosphere, wherein red indicates the youngest age, and blue indicates the oldest age. The lines represent tectonic plates.

TargeT
18th May 2017, 22:37
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg/300px-2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg)
Colors indicate the age of oceanic lithosphere, wherein red indicates the youngest age, and blue indicates the oldest age. The lines represent tectonic plates.

Doesn't that map backup growing earth theory pretty damn neatly?

Shouldn't the colors be reversed if there is subduction?


Btw this video (interview I linked above) is pretty damn interesting, he's questioning physics in a very coherent way and the differences between geology and physics, very fascinating.

Pair production, dark matter, quark creation, the composition of electrons etc..... I wasn't ready for this level of discussion on this topic.. haha

araucaria
19th May 2017, 12:34
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg/300px-2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg)
Colors indicate the age of oceanic lithosphere, wherein red indicates the youngest age, and blue indicates the oldest age. The lines represent tectonic plates.


Doesn't that map backup growing earth theory pretty damn neatly?

That map is the one Neal Adams uses to build his dynamic model, gradually removing the sections from red to blue while maintaining a spherical surface. If you remove the red, you go back 10 million years, if you remove all the way to the blue, you go back 180 million years: that is precisely what he is doing. In this longer version, at 7:30 he dates the start of the oceanic rift to 185 million years ago.

oJfBSc6e7QQ

I was not suggesting that subduction does not exist, only that it does not explain the entire picture; but Neal Adams, who has studied this much more closely than I have, emphasizes that there is no subduction. I had not heard his interview, which goes a whole lot further than I expected from him, and notably corroborates what I was saying about growth.
Since geology may not have all the answers, it only makes sense to look to other disciplines for help. Given that according to Paul LaViolette, expansion, or rather growth, is something of a cosmological... constant, from the proton up (and even from the vacuum up), then if there is any truth to his elegantly all-embracing theory, then the inadequacy of geological theory could be added to a string of other proven predictions. If the process he describes happens at all, then it happens here on Earth and not just in deep space. And equally, if the process Adams describes happens at all, then it happens in deep space and not just here on Earth. Hence his model would appear to work for the Moon, Mars and Europa.
x6_9bldsaxA
d44Jj_3gp-M
zy3_sWF7tv4
Just as Adams’ demonstration is best made with the smaller telluric planets, LaViolette’s is best made with the gas giants. But they are describing two aspects of the same phenomenon that dovetail together like Africa and South America. Hence Adams’ fascinating analysis of the positronic origin of what others call the aether has to equate with LaViolette’s ‘genic energy’, which he shows to be a mechanism that accounts for the excess heat flux coming from all the gas giants in the solar system when other mechanisms have to be tailored to each planet, and which he shows to account for ‘the mathematical relation that exists between the masses of [planets and low-mass stars] and their luminosities. (Genesis of the Cosmos, p321-2). In other words, planets behave like low-mass stars when they are seen to behave like each other.

Hervé
19th May 2017, 16:44
That expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984) is based on the formation of the "oceans" driven by a considerable expansion of the earth's volume by cracking open its crust and filling in the ocean floors, right?

Well, such a rate of expansion, again, expertly visualized in that video, precludes and excludes the formation and activities of subduction zones: they cannot form/exist under such a model since the creation of oceanic floors is driven by a ballooning of earth spilling out her extra matter at oceanic ridges!

Now, material is still being vomited along the planet's oceanic ridges and, therefore, according to that theory, is the only indication that the earth is still expanding from an increase of matter in her bowels, right?

Then, how come the Peri-pacific subduction zones and subducted slabs (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1153698&viewfull=1#post1153698)? They shouldn't be there since material accretion at oceanic ridges is the direct indicator of the earth volume expansion.

Hence this:

Posted by Hervé (here) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=1153698#post1153698)
My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.How about fossilized ancient subduction/obduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obduction) zones and their pillow lavas (indicative of the existence of an ancient seawater environment) as found in Greenstone belts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenstone_belt) around the world?

Now, for the reversing of the theory, since subduction zones and their oceanic slabs do exist and that rate of continental and oceanic crusts relative displacements are entirely accommodated by subduction rates minus a few kinks and buckles; then, what drives Mid Oceanic Ridges accretions and continental drifts is not earth's expansion!

As simple as that!



Hopefully, some readers will be able to understand the above and then, maybe, wonder why such videos designed to appeal to YouTubers are accompanied by such memes as:


"They are lying to you!"
"Conspiracy of silence."


... which is part of the "New Education (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94832-Flat-Earth-Psychological-Operations&p=1152716&viewfull=1#post1152716)."

TargeT
19th May 2017, 17:19
That expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984) is based on the formation of the "oceans" driven by a considerable expansion of the earth's volume by cracking open its crust and filling in the ocean floors, right?

Well, such a rate of expansion, again, expertly visualized in that video, precludes and excludes the formation and activities of subduction zones: they cannot form/exist under such a model since the creation of oceanic floors is driven by a ballooning of earth spilling out her extra matter at oceanic ridges!

Now, material is still being vomited along the planet's oceanic ridges and, therefore, according to that theory, is the only indication that the earth is still expanding from an increase of matter in her bowels, right?

No that's not my understanding at all. one of the bigger clues to the growing earth is our atmosphere, we lose a good portion of our atmosphere every day (it’s only about 90 metric tons... (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/earth-sending-oxygen-moon) lol), but it is continually replaced from somewhere... what explanation would there be for that?


Then, how come the Peri-pacific subduction zones and subducted slabs? They shouldn't be there since material accretion at oceanic ridges is the direct indicator of the earth volume expansion.

Your presupposing that subduction as a result of plate techtonics is guaranteed to exist, but it's really not.. in fact the most important part about subduction is completely un known.. I think the entire theory has too many holes to be valid.

Subduction is NOT a continual proccess, subduction areas go dormant, so we HAVE to be able to explain how subduction starts, and we can't. Subduction initiation is probably the least well-understood aspect of plate tectonic theory. While events such as the opening and closure of ocean basins suggest that subduction initiation is common, theoretical models suggest is should be quite difficult.

The growing (not expanding, expanding is vastly different than growing) earth theory could have provisions for subduction as created matter can shove tectonic plates left or right or up or down depending on where the added matter creates pressure in the mantel.



Hence this:

Posted by Hervé (here) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=1153698#post1153698)
My main point is that an "expanding earth" and the existence of subduction zones are mutually exclusive.How about fossilized ancient subduction/obduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obduction) zones and their pillow lavas (indicative of the existence of an ancient seawater environment) as found in Greenstone belts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenstone_belt) around the world?

Only because you haven't considered what I wrote above ;)


Now, for the reversing of the theory, since subduction zones and their oceanic slabs do exist and that rate of continental and oceanic crusts relative displacements are entirely accommodated by subduction rates minus a few kinks and buckles; then, what drives Mid Oceanic Ridges accretions and continental drifts is not earth's expansion!

yes, growth, not expansion ;)

how do you explain the subduction zones that have gone dormant? too many questions on that theory.

araucaria
19th May 2017, 21:31
Hopefully, some readers will be able to understand the above and then, maybe, wonder why such videos designed to appeal to YouTubers are accompanied by such memes as:


"They are lying to you!"
"Conspiracy of silence."

This is pretty condescending in a bona fide discussion. No one here is suggesting lies or conspiracies of silence, merely the progress from less to greater understanding. Simply, people can tell the difference between a whole string of phenomena that don’t stack up being explained as to opposed to being explained away. Neal Adams provides in one fell swoop how, to pick out just three fro many issues – geographical, gravitational and chronological – how huge dinosaurs managed to evolve on distant continents oceans apart, how they managed to live a normal existence despite their size; and how freshwater fish predominate in terms of numbers of species and historical precedence. If subduction zones don’t answer any of these things, it may be because – much as he describes the case of positrons as being taken out of the equation when interpreted as anti-matter – something whose existence is not in doubt but whose essence is uncertain is being shoehorned into a theory.

If, say, as is historically probable, one simply took it for granted that the Earth has always been this size, only to discover widening ocean beds, then subduction is a logical inference, in the same relationship to continental drift as antimatter is to matter. That doesn’t make it right, even though something answering the description may be found; however the need to see things in this manner disappears just as soon as the initial presupposition is challenged.

Any phenomenon is independent of the interpretation of that phenomenon that is based on insufficient evidence. This is the field of the optical illusion. You cannot tell the difference in a drawing between a rabbit and a duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion). But if you see the same optical illusion in real life, you can find out more by going up to the animal and seeing how it behaves. If it starts quacking, then you know it is not a rabbit.

A couple of additional comments:


That expanding earth theory as visualized in that video in post # 2 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984) is based on the formation of the "oceans" driven by a considerable expansion of the earth's volume by cracking open its crust and filling in the ocean floors, right?That is a two-dimensional description of a three dimensional effect. There is a subterranean effect caused by the production of extra volume all around the globe (a basketball contains not just more rubber than a tennis ball, but more air as well). But more crucially, you have to take in what happens to the landmasses as they flatten out without otherwise growing – just as your hand will do if you place it on a balloon being inflated. This means that the ocean bed is also flattening out across its entire breadth, again without growing, except for the upsurge of material at the ridge.


rate of continental and oceanic crusts relative displacements are entirely accommodated by subduction rates minus a few kinks and buckles; then, what drives Mid Oceanic Ridges accretions and continental drifts is not earth's expansion! This is stated but not demonstrated. It is no rebuttal of previously quoted objections.

araucaria
20th May 2017, 17:43
The important phrase that set this discussion going was from Bill Ryan:

It sounds like a crazy idea, but David Wilcock's early insider source Daniel (real name known, a serious scientist with his own website on the net) told David, who told Kerry and myself, that the Earth was expanding, and this information was known to black ops scientists. (Why this would be kept classified was never stated.) http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97720-Is-the-Earth-expanding&p=1151984&viewfull=1#post1151984

We are told that the elite, who have been keeping all the best science, technology and wisdom from the rest of us for thousands, if not millions, of years, also hold to this obvious nonsense? It makes no sense. What makes a lot of sense on the other hand is this: from what we have nonetheless worked out, all the best science, technology and wisdom teaches that planet Gaia is a living entity whom the elite is either out to kill or dangerously pretending to allow to die and the rest of us are trying to save.

‘Why this would be kept classified’ would be in general terms be, as always, to further that agenda, and more specifically, probably to allow conventional geologists to continue to tout the view that the Earth is just the same old same old very wet lump of rock, of no special value, and indeed of little value at all. Hence simply trashing the planet is probably the best answer, because that suggests it is worthless, whereas to kill something is to recognize it as having a value, albeit negative to oneself.

One way to achieve this end might be to lump together Growing Earth wisdom with patent Flat Earth nonsense as a single territory, although there is an ocean between them. There is not just an intuitive difference between the two: the one being exciting, uplifting and forward-looking, the other regressive, depressing and deadly boring. There are also practical differences in how we behave. For flat earthers, it means things they should not be doing, but carry on doing anyway; for example, they should not be taking long-distance flights, as airline timetables have got to be a huge deception. For growing earthers, it means things they should be doing, and are probably already doing anyway; ecologically-minded things like looking after Mother Earth and indeed all life forms. These are the very things that we suggest more and more people should be doing as well; hence the Growing Earth is a spiritual rationale for following that positive course, whereas FE is plain dumbing-down of the nastiest sort.

Small wonder, then, that ‘this would be kept classified’.

TargeT
20th May 2017, 18:54
We are told that the elite, who have been keeping all the best science, technology and wisdom from the rest of us for thousands, if not millions, of years, also hold to this obvious nonsense? It makes no sense.

A growing earth proves that transmutation & matter from energy is possible (no such thing as scarcity) and that L.E.N.R. (Low energy nuclear reactions) are real (free energy).

I think that would be desperately kept "under wraps"



For growing earthers, it means things they should be doing, and are probably already doing anyway; ecologically-minded things like looking after Mother Earth and indeed all life forms. These are the very things that we suggest more and more people should be doing as well; hence the Growing Earth is a spiritual rationale for following that positive course, whereas FE is plain dumbing-down of the nastiest sort.

Small wonder, then, that ‘this would be kept classified’.

That's another interesting take as well, I was focused mainly on the science aspect of it, but I agree.. as far as over all Moral goes and such.

Bubu
21st May 2017, 11:29
Dont understand why we have to bring in science, as argument or proof, that we ourselves dont have the capacity to verify. all this despite knowing that information out there are heavily manipulated.
Is earth alive? to me anything that is alive is either growing or dying. that includes rocks mountains earth and all. Heck I don't even know what to do or is it gonna benefit any of us if we ever prove that earth indeed is expanding.

araucaria
21st May 2017, 14:00
Dont understand why we have to bring in science, as argument or proof, that we ourselves dont have the capacity to verify. (...) is it gonna benefit any of us if we ever prove that earth indeed is expanding.
Look at it this way. You are given a piece of real estate; you want to know how valuable it is. How do you find out? Who do you ask? You ask yourself; you work the land. That is not all hard labour: a little science will help to increase your productivity. But what elite is telling you is that your land is worthless. The Growing Earth idea says otherwise. So, yes, it is not so much about science as the capacity to verify that we do all have. But – here’s the difficult part – a little effort is called for. See this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85903-Anomalies-in-The-Ruiner-s-material&p=1012175&viewfull=1#post1012175).

Another thing: we often talk about the need and importance of being grounded; if the Earth is just a lump of rock, then the idea sounds like earthing an electrical appliance or installing a lightning conductor. If the Earth is alive, then grounding is more like a child running into its mother arms, or even never actually leaving them. See these posts.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85125-Shane-The-Ruiner-s-interview-with-Kerry-Cassidy-8-Sept-2015&p=998227&viewfull=1#post998227
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?80226-What-a-wonderful-Kosmos----&p=937448&viewfull=1#post937448

ExomatrixTV
27th January 2018, 02:53
TosyS9j4qXo