Expanding Earth

[Pathfinder]

Posted by galactica (here)
Thank you, Pathfinder.

While appreciating your response ... what you are reporting, the source, sounds (respectfully) highly hypothetical / belief-based.

I wonder about crystals within the earth ...

I don't disagree with you there friend. These are just some thoughts I have about Earth expansion, I'm definitely not saying this is the way it is, set in stone!

[Isostool]

OK. Like, I've heard that there is magnecular matter [and hypermagnecular] inside the Earth, and that in that its orbitals are aligned into its harmonious iso spin coupling, and isoelectronium, maybe this means that there is a doorway which opens from here into the egg or proto universe and matter leaks through from there to here. I am totally speculating. I don't know. That matter would be 'fusing' here in the regular way we know of it doesn't quite sit right with me. It is too dense in there and not enough pressure to fuse heavier elements.

[galactica]

I understood, my friend :-)
(was referring, respectfully, to Mr High's info)

Yup, I would question if anything is set in stone. Those reports may I offer, are - shall we say, very - questionable.

[KosmicKat]

What I get from the video is that if we're looking for a source of expansion of our planet, unless something has changed, the place we are most likely to find it would be somewhere in the Pacific region. Is there supporting evidence for this idea? for example, if the mass of our planet has changed, would the orbit not have changed also? or if the mass has not changed, is our planet becoming more and more cavernous in nature?

[galactica]

... consider ... was Greenland's sunrise arriving two days early, reported as January 11 2011, really about climate / crustal change ...

... can 'time' flow backwards as well as forward ...

[str8thinker]

Just a moment. Let's put our thinking caps on.

If this expanding Earth theory is correct (never mind how the oceans happened to get there), we would have hardly any mountains. Mountains are formed when two crustal plates collide, or one is forced under the other. The Indian continent is still pushing against Asia, and as a result, the Himalayas increase slightly in height each year. This would not be so if all continents are drifting away from each other with nothing to stop them, as the theory maintains.

[Luke]

Posted by str8thinker (here)
Just a moment. Let's put our thinking caps on.

If this expanding Earth theory is correct (never mind how the oceans happened to get there), we would have hardly any mountains. Mountains are formed when two crustal plates collide, or one is forced under the other. The Indian continent is still pushing against Asia, and as a result, the Himalayas increase slightly in height each year. This would not be so if all continents are drifting away from each other with nothing to stop them, as the theory maintains.

all cool till you consider:

(1) oceans once covered all of the surface, and there was "water mantle" atmosphere Even mainstream agrees to that.
(2) Expanding is not balloon like, but follow lines of grid. Also , surface plates "growth" ratio is higher than that of radial expansion. (similar to what happens in underwater lava flows)
(3) There are both expansion and contraction episodes in the past
(4) One can also speculate about crystal formations formed in upper mantle that "push up" in some regions, similar to volcanic hotspot formation.

David Wilcock made a compilation of theories here : http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?op...d=99&Itemid=36

[omeriko]

Posted by str8thinker (here)
If this expanding Earth theory is correct (never mind how the oceans happened to get there), we would have hardly any mountains. Mountains are formed when two crustal plates collide, or one is forced under the other. The Indian continent is still pushing against Asia, and as a result, the Himalayas increase slightly in height each year. This would not be so if all continents are drifting away from each other with nothing to stop them, as the theory maintains.

Here is how Neal Adams explains the Himalayas in his videos.

http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html

I found his reference to Italy very interesting and appropriate.

And all (or most) of his videos, in no certain sequence that I could find, can be found here.

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

[mrmalco]

Neal Adams makes a lot of sense. Never could understand how the continents could drift on a planet that stays the same size. The point about the re-contouring of the huge northern area is very plausible. I wonder at what stage (and to what degree) water became a crucial part of this process. There is a question still about the marine fossils that have been reported as found in the Himalayas. Perhaps a cometary deep ocean impact that would set up huge waves. Which cetainly seems the likelihood in view of the landlocked salt lakes lying around the planet. Thanks for this thread Muz.

[bluestflame]

maybe said comet was ice and water

[omeriko]

I think Michael Tsarion said something about a planet (Tiamat?) that was mostly oceanic while Earth's waters where mostly sweet water little seas.
He said that Tiamat exploded or something and that's where we get the oceans from. Also, raining frogs and fish.

I don't know if that's correct, and I have my disagreements with him. But it's a thought.

[str8thinker]

Thanks for the extra links omeriko.

I read Neal Adams site but his theories still don't make sense. For a start, he offers no real explanation as to what the forces are that cause the Earth to expand, nor where the oceans fit into all this. If all the continents fitted together when the Earth was only 50% of its present size (and gravity was considerably less), then everything would have to have been underwater, i.e., there would have been no land animals.

Conversely, as the Earth expanded and the continents became separated by ocean, there would be no land bridges for any land animals to be able to cross.

It should be pretty simple to devise an experiment to confirm or deny whether the Earth's circumference is indeed increasing, but no one seems to have proposed one.

Neal is so dismissive of current geological theories yet his own theories fail to explain adequately to me the formation of the Swiss Alps and Himalayas, granted that Italy and India look similar. A few moving arrows are not enough.

[Steven]

Any mention to Lawrence S. Myers? http://www.expanding-earth.org/

He has a theory which does indeed base its claim on real observable data, even if most geologists disagree http://creationwiki.org/Expanding_earth_theory

I find it quite interesting. http://www.worldnpa.org/main/index.p...JAS_File_id=25

Namaste, Steven

[str8thinker]

Thanks Steven - Myers is easier to understand than Adams.

(From Myers' web page) What’s causing rapid growth and expansion?

Answer: two concurrent basic mechanisms reinforcing each other:

1. Accretion of matter from space gradually increasing earth’s mass, gravity, surface area and diameter

2. Internal core expansion by tectonic force of expanding magma melted by gravity-generated compressive heat

Plausible, but again, no mathematical models. I am not convinced that the heat generated by compression due to accretion is sufficient to warm the magma to the temperature necessary to force it to expand in this way, given that there is no fusion or other heat-generating process taking place at the center of the Earth similar to that occurring within the Sun. One would expect that, even with accretion over time, the net result would be gradual cooling of the planet.

If anyone knows of any mathematical models supporting this, please post.

(added since)
Following up on David Willcock's Divine Cosmos page, thanks to Luke who posted this link earlier, I note the following:

5.4 GLOBAL EXPANSION TECTONICS

In 1933, Christopher Otto Hilgenberg was the first to show that if we shrink the Earth down to 55-60 percent of its current size, then all the continents would fit together just like a jigsaw puzzle, as seen in Figure 5.2.

He made the bold suggestion that this was caused by the Earth expanding in size; at one time in the past, it really was 55 to 60 percent of its current size. The most rigorous article that we have found on this topic is by James Maxlow

This page provides a nice summary of Maxlow's work as well as the history of Global Expansion Tectonics.

Unfortunately, James Maxlow's original site (which includes detailed mathematical analyses) is no longer online, though it is recoverable here cached by the Internet Archive, so I suggest any of you interested in this should save these pages.

(added) The whole of Maxlow's website is downloadable as a zip file at this link.

In addition, Maxlow's site includes links to other sites:

David Ford (also offline now, but cached here and here).

Karl Luckert's site, which is still online.

Interestingly (from Maxlow's site):

From the mathematical relationship established for the rate of change of palaeoradius from the Archaean to the Present it was calculated that the Earth is undergoing an exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, commencing from an Archaean primordial Earth size of approximately 1700 kilometres radius.

So a steady, exponential increase in Earth's radius IS supported by recent measurements.

Hmm, I'm starting to become convinced, particularly after watching all of Neal Adams' videos.

[schnurfel]

Posted by bluestflame (here)
tesla said something about what is contained in a drop of water ,
about harnessing its energy ...

I could imagine that Tesla was referring to the hydrogen atom - it seems to have more ground states than was previously thought/calculated, it therefore could be made to release additional energy. There is work on that by Paul LaViolette, who also was interviewed by Kerry and Bill.

Regarding the expanding Earth: this was a commonly accepted theory throughout the former eastern bloc, they thought that neutrinos obtaining physical mass within the earth’s dense core were responsible for the growth.
If one looks at the shapes of the continents, they indeed fit together into one spheric surface of a smaller earth. Maybe there is something to it, I find this very interesting.

[bluestflame]

as an example inflate a balloon a little enough to draw a current map of the world on it , then add more air

then imagine the inflation does not come from outside , it's somehow filled from the centre

which is probably why it's not something you're likely to read about in science books

[Muzz]

mike1414 started this thread way back in March 2010, there are some good posts in it. Mods if your reading you could merge this into his thread.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...fact-expanding