Conspiracy of Science: Earth is in fact growing

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Fred S. (here)
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]

[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 Wow my geography must really be out of date.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]

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by Jeia Ra Manuk (here)
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?

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/n...space-science/



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

Posted by Karma Ninja (here)
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]

Posted by Magnus (here)
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.

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by Kamikaze (here)
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. [/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]

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
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]

Posted by Operator (here)

Posted by Magnus (here)
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.

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 for those interested.

And heres James Maxlow giving a presentation on the subject

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0

[13th Warrior]

Posted by Kamikaze (here)
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]

Posted by 13th Warrior (here)

Posted by Kamikaze (here)
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?

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by Fred S. (here)

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
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, [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 is down at times, and their 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 & 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