Expanding Earth

[Muzz]

Hi All
Whats your thoughts on the expanding earth theory. Heres a vid to stimulate the discussion.


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

[bluestflame]

filled from the centre as if from within ,

something to do with the research scientists did with sealed vials with sterile environment that when left things grew

that came into being from somewhere or through somewhere in a process they don't yet understand

perhaps lot of lifeforms come into being through the centre of the earth ( start in the centre and work your way out )

maybe

[Taurean]

Where's all the water coming from ?

[bluestflame]

maybe it's been a slow sweat

am not saying it's all internal , surely things have fallen here from the "heavens"

I think it's a dual flow

[Taurean]

Maybe there's a frequency that attracts hydrogen and oxygen from outer space ?

[Icecold]

If the earth is heating up, then it follows that it is expanding. 1 Law of Thermodynamics

[bluestflame]

yeah that's what i got , why are planets different sizes ?

why is under the earths crust hot enough to melt rock?

why do the continents seperated by water seem to almost fit like jigsaw ?

[bluestflame]

assuming the hydrogen and oxygen could be a byproduct of the inner heating process ( where pure energy comes into being "material)

i'm not a scientist

more like "when that which is beyond form comes in to form " the heat produced in this process

though some say the core is hot cos of core of molden iron spinning creating the magnetic poles ( which have been measured as reducing)

[omeriko]

Where's all the water coming from ?

And all the extra mass?

Anyhow, I must say, in his other videos he presents pretty compelling evidence from other planets and moons.
I was impressed.

[Isostool]

The life in a sealed vial comes from 8hz over 72 hours creating a 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 cascade which creates life. The matter from within - that I'd like to know where it comes from. My guess is through a magnecular or hyper magnecular superconductive state which somehow manifests matter, or there is some kind of doorway in there form the centre of the sun and matter can just come through, but really I have no idea how that kind of thing would work. or perhaps the Earth has just become less dense over time in its expansion and the amount of matter is the same. Fascinating.

[bluestflame]

tesla said something about what is contained in a drop of water ,
about harnessing its energy ...

[Tigger]

See also another thread, "Earth Crack A Mystery". Sorry I don't know how to link to it.

[Isostool]

yeah that's what i got , why are planets different sizes ?

why is under the earths crust hot enough to melt rock?

why do the continents seperated by water seem to almost fit like jigsaw ?

Officially the core of the Earth is hot becuase of the radioactive elements within it decaying. I would like to know how this expanding Earth theory explains the formation of mountain ranges without the action of plates moving towards each other. Perhaps there is still some of that going on as well. I would assume so?

[bluestflame]

might be a package deal , a combo

[Pathfinder]

This thread reminded me of a snippet from a recent Clif High interview on Alien Addictions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=157qUY9YrRw&annotation_id=annotation_546914#t=9m20s

In part 5 of 9, starting at the 2:35 mark until the 6:00 mark, he talks about the
Expanding Earth theory and how plasma could be energy converting to matter.
Say what you will about Clif High but this snippet is definitely relevant to the topic.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. If its true, I wonder how
much mass planets can eventually acquire, and what stages of transformation they undergo?

In the interview, Clif is presenting the theory as one valid example of something that could cause major plate shifting. The reason it caught my attention was because of George Kavassilas' work, in which he says the earth will turn into a star when it ascends. The Expanding Earth theory actually makes the idea plausible! ...sort of.

According to modern astronomy, a celestial body would need to be about 75 - 85% more massive than Jupiter to have enough mass for fusion to occur at the core. That's a heck of a lot of plasma! If that were the case if would take a very long time. But that doesn't mean the process won't have an immediate impact on the Earth.

Going back to the topic of ascension, there is information out there that is not considered reliable, but some claim there is much usefulness in it. I claim to be one of those people, that being said, I want to refer to the Hidden Hand material found here.

http://www.illuminati-news.com/00363.html

About a quarter of the way down the page, just after the animated rippling image, the HH person says
In appearance, were you to gaze upon Lucifer's fullest expression of our Being, the appearance would be that of a Sun or a "Bright Star".

It is said here and in the Law of One material, we are all associated with what is called a "Social Memory Complex." A kind of psychically linked group mind. It is implied in the HH material that the physical manifestation of a "SMC" is a celestial body of some sort. 6th density beings appearing as bright stars, perhaps massive type O stars, meanwhile 3rd density (planetary)beings appearing as terrestrial planets.

Many ascension supporters, including George Kavassilas, say that the earth is actually ascending to 5th density, perhaps 5th density is where beings appear as a smaller star?

So, this indicates that planets should metamorphose into stars eventually as they evolve in consciousness. If we are the shards that make up the planets consciousness, it stands to reason we should undergo metamorphosis as well.

Now, how does earth go from what it is now, into a full blown star? Well, if the expanding earth theory is correct, over millenniums, is it possible the earth could acquire enough mass to turn into one? If so, in relation to ascension it could very well be, that if earth goes into 4th density it is metamorphosing and expanding, and by the time it reaches 5th density, it will have acquired enough mass to turn into a star, coinciding with its rise in consciousness.

As far as our perspective, if we ascend with the earth, time will not affect us anymore, so the millennia that it takes for all of this to occur will go by unnoticed by us. If the earth is ascending to 5th density, it also makes sense that it would go "through" 4th density on its way, which would explain why it has time to build mass so it can turn into a star eventually.(from a 3rd density point of view.)

Just some thoughts on the matter. :loco:

[JoshERTW]

Officially the core of the Earth is hot becuase of the radioactive elements within it decaying. I would like to know how this expanding Earth theory explains the formation of mountain ranges without the action of plates moving towards each other. Perhaps there is still some of that going on as well. I would assume so?

I don't know if this is correct or not - My understanding of the heat at the center of the earth is that it is more like a pressure cooker - the absolute core of the earth literally has the full weight of the entire planet and everything in/on it compressing it from all angles. Think of the pressures that are generated in the ocean depths, the centre of the earth is compressed by significantly more and as pressure increases so does temperature (at least in the abscence of other variables like heating by the sun - ocean analogy isn't good here, as although the temp. of the ocean is higher at lower depths i.e. teh surface, this is due to the sun's influence). At the centre of the earth the only variable is pressure and its ridiculously high. At those kind of pressures the melting points / boiling points etc. of various elements are also significantly altered (lowered). This is why I use the pressure cooker analogy - it may not even be that hot down there, but due to the pressures involved, the same temperature would seem astronomically hotter in a relative sense. Hope this helps, been a while since I've reviewed my thermodynamics lessons haha.

[galactica]

How could a planet (earth) turn into a star?! Lava is not plasma. Or is there something I'm not seeing?

Could there be a sun that pulses inside the earth?

Could there be a sea inside the earth?

[Pathfinder]

How could a planet (earth) turn into a star?! Lava is not plasma. Or is there something I'm not seeing?

Could there be a sun that pulses inside the earth?

Could there be a sea inside the earth?

The idea, presented in the Clif High interview, is that there could be plasma at the core of the Earth. If that is the case, there is probably some type of fusion occurring, and magma is the byproduct. It's pushed outwards and thus we have the expanding earth, as it cools and adds more to the mass of earth. So in essence, it would kind of be like a sun in the middle of the earth, fusion of particles in a plasma state, of course it would not be the same elements fusing.

The idea a planet could turn into a star is in the mass. Weather or not its possible for a body to acquire a lot of mass and then undergo nuclear fusion in its core and begin fusing hydrogen. Its sort of looking at astronomy backwards, asking if its possible for smaller objects to "grow" into larger ones.

[galactica]

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 ...

[Isostool]

I don't know if this is correct or not - My understanding of the heat at the center of the earth is that it is more like a pressure cooker - the absolute core of the earth literally has the full weight of the entire planet and everything in/on it compressing it from all angles. Think of the pressures that are generated in the ocean depths, the centre of the earth is compressed by significantly more and as pressure increases so does temperature (at least in the abscence of other variables like heating by the sun - ocean analogy isn't good here, as although the temp. of the ocean is higher at lower depths i.e. teh surface, this is due to the sun's influence). At the centre of the earth the only variable is pressure and its ridiculously high. At those kind of pressures the melting points / boiling points etc. of various elements are also significantly altered (lowered). This is why I use the pressure cooker analogy - it may not even be that hot down there, but due to the pressures involved, the same temperature would seem astronomically hotter in a relative sense. Hope this helps, been a while since I've reviewed my thermodynamics lessons haha.

The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).[2] The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232.[3]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8b9oNsUM4XcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient+Radioactive+decay+inside+the+earth&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

[Pathfinder]

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. :p 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]

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?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=36

[omeriko]

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 (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.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&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 (http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=36), 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 (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html) 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 (http://web.archive.org/web/20091027040131/http://geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/) 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 (Download complete website: http://web.archive.org/web/20091022132000/geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GET.zip).

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

David Ford (also offline now, but cached here (http://web.archive.org/web/20091026204128/www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/HomePage.htm) and here (http://web.archive.org/web/20021122152337/www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2730/)).

Karl Luckert's site (http://www.triplehood.com/expa.htm), 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]

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.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?308-Earth-is-infact-expanding