EARTH IS EXPANDING

Thanks, OP.

... why are you growing???... lol, and cuz after all, you're an Eath-link too.

or... maybe think of it this away... as you/me/we all wake up in the morning our core temp begins to rise... and the generating capacity, and for our stirring's sake, begins to expand a bit as we heat back up, and into our wakenings.

or... our dear Ma Earth is entering upon some new dimensional aspects of Herself, et al... and as She/all are being bathed all the more and more with just the highest known spectrummings of light, or frequencies, or vibrations of all of them gamma ray burstings a'goin' on 'out there'.

or, lol, Gaia is stirring to wake-full-ness, and... it's a grand nu-clear-ity for all.

w/luv,
just me

very true

loss of Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields.

who the hell is zarathustra?

By absorption of gravitons from DVAG pushing gravity field. This field consists of Dark Energy / Vacuum Energy /Aether / Gravity.

astrojan.ini.hu

For God's sake, Eagle! Use a little 8th-grade math and see how deep 40 tons of dust (or even 40 million tons of dust) would be.

Am I the only one here who took any science and math in college?

I agree with Legion. Great vid, thanks. peace

the earth is spinning and also being pulled on by a load of gravitational forces, including the moon and the sun - the centrifugal force is pulling it outward and this causes the expansion.

no one said anything about gaining mass.

or, at least, i didn't. however, neal adams did reference an article that said that there were pre-historic insects that were absolutely huge - way too big than, biologists admit, gravity would allow. neal said this was further confirmation that the earth was smaller then and gravity was less in pre-historic times. with less gravity larger insects (dragonflies the size of hawks) could support their own bodyweight.

but if the earth always had the same mass, it would be more dense then than now, right? and therefore have more gravitational pull ~ or would it only be based on the mass?

frankly, we honestly don't know shit about the inside of planets - any of us. who knows, maybe there's a type of nuclear fusion that takes place when that much mass is crushing in on itself - and that most large planets (sans pluto) - are still "alive" in that they burn up matter within themselves but also expel new matter. the planet "breathes" by drawing in hydrogen from space, processing it, and drawing it through the crust down into the "engine" where, like a small sun, it can churn the hydrogen and expell matter that eventually forms into molten rock which then gets pushed outward through the skin to make solid rock.

suns could very well be the same thing as planets with the exception that no matter around it even gets the chance to 'cool' and become solid matter. it is able to eat new and expelled matter faster than the threshhold where some could leave the plasma state and cool and harden.

the centrifugal force on a planet and the force of gravity on a planet are counter to each other. ive never thought about that before.

What have you ever debunked?

Shouldn't you be spending more time looking for pussy, and less on the internet?

It's a possibility. But why ?

atlantis rising once again.. things like this, the hollow earth and so many ridicules against Al Gore's global warming are all easy to dubunk. I saw this about a month ago and i knew this all along. They could have went into so much more stuff like mountains for instance.

Exactly. We don't know shit about what is happening inside the earth. Anybody who says they know or that something couldn't be possible is a liar or an idiot or both.

PERHAPS THIS IS WHY IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS MAN LIVED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

SMALLER EARTH, + FASTER ROTATIONS = SHORTER YEARS.

HEY I'm 600 TODAY ! ! !

Maybe it was oceanless. Maybe it was all ocean with the land submerged. Can't say.

In case you "debunkers" (legends in your own mind's, I'm sure) haven't visited his website, he has videos of other planets and moons. It's really compelling stuff, especially the moon video. Just because you can't conceive it doesn't make it not so.

sounds great.
Show me some of this moon stuff !!!

OFFICIAL DOCTRINE:

The Universe Expands (aka redshift)

The Earth Does NOT Expand (aka debunkershift)


You must be 'doublethink compatable' to earn the bucks!

Dr. Aspden's sense of physics, and his aether structured theory is an interesting place to start in on such ideas as continous creation of new matter from the raw energic aether. There are other physics theories out there (other than the standard British Intelligence Newtonian systems)that also allow for the creation of matter from the energy of the energy that permeats the universe around us.

Neal Adam's theory is not that of an Expanding Earth, and to call it that does a diservice to his theory. Call it what it is, a Growing Earth Theory. It expands because it is growing. The good question then one might pose, accepting Neal Adams Growing Earth theory is is to ask just how fast or slow, calmly or violently the planet has grown in the past. If the growth at times has been very rapid, then what happens when a 42,000 mile crack develops in the Earth's crust all on the same day? One can consider the theory of Walt Brown in his Flood of Noah theories as well in such a case.

The fact of the matter is we really don't know what is down there even 15 miles under our feet, do we.

There are those who would have the core be a nesting of a cubic form, nested inside a octahedron, nested in turn inside an icosahedron, nested inside a dodecahedron, strangely much like the late Dr. Moon's Nuclear model. In which Dr. Moon accounts in ways for the formation of the proton and neutrons. Dr. Aspden's model has the neutron also be formed of a number of positrons and electrons along with accompaning gravitons.

Without a completely unified field theory of physics yet, it is vastly too early to be dogmatic about much of physics in this day and time.

Shades of Krypton.

I too find Neal Adams Growing Earth model very provocative and definitely food for thought, it makes far more sense that the prevailing currently politically correct and government sanctions theory of plate tectonics and continential drift.

There is a perfectly rational explanation where it came from, IF you understand century old physics, which you do not.

Your hypothesis fails.

No big surprise, nearly all bullshit bunker ideas are nonsense, yours is no exception.

Better go back to comic books.

It takes too much effort for most people to look into a theory. It's much easier to fed what to think or not think. I'm not sure how people can find plate tectonics and continental drift as a reasonable explanation and only an explanation for our planet and not other planetary bodies. Growing Earth is a better term than Expanding Earth, but still not good enough. It should be Expanding Planets Theory.

This statement has the hidden assumption that the orbit of the Earth hasn't changed as well. True the days would be shorter back then, but the length of the year (the duration of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun in terms of the rotation of the Earth around its axis) is decoupled from the length of the day so the length of the year could have been shorter as well or very much longer for that matter.

There are ways to do the calculations (with various necessary assumptions apriori) that could have the length of the year back in Adam's "time" be much much longer than it currently is in terms of atomic clock time, and yet have the number of days and the atomic clock time of the length of those days be very very much shorter.

You will notice, I am sure, that Genesis give Adam's lifespan in terms of Years and not in terms of Months, nor Days, nor atomic clock seconds. The unspoken assumptions in dealing with the length of time of Adam's life are that we can thing in a uniformitarian fashion that both the Earth's Orbit has not changed since then, nor has the Earth's rate of rotation around its axis. Both assumptions are premise that may or may not have been the truth.

Given the alledged "conservation of angular momentum", it would appear that a smaller diameter Earth would indeed have had days that in atomic clock time seconds would have been much shorter, than they are now. But IF the orbit of the Earth has not changed then it would follow that the number of days in the year would have been far greater than currently (assuming the orbit was the same as currently.)

Still, I find Neal Adam's Growing Planet theory one definitely worth checking out. The mechanism for growth is the fundamental question, but that should not stop investigations into his theory. The current Plate Tectonics and Continential drift theories were also at first not accepted because no one could conceive of a working mechanism that would inititate the movement of such continents, once enough scientists thought the had found a believable mechanism for contential drift, plate tectonics was born. However, there are yet very many who challange the standing models, yet the peer review system in the scientific journals is about as much "information and mind control" as one can find in other systems that work to control the thoughts of the mind of man so they comform to a predatory elites idea of what good cattle the masses should be - dumbed down cattle.

BTW, which centuries old physics is that? And who were you addressing your comment to?

When addressing the Earth, "Growing Earth Theory" is an appropriate name for it. However, your point is that all planetary bodies above a certain size are suggested to be growing according to Neal Adam's theory, so it would seem to be more appropriately termed a "Growing Planets Theory." Or maybe a "Planetary Growth Theory."

I find that the battle between Leibniz and Newton is not over yet.

You said it better than I did (I even went back to using 'expanding' instead of 'growing').

I like the term "Planetary Growth Theory."

<<why have laser ranging measurments of the moon failed to show a growing Earth?>>

A perfect example of Uniformitarin mind set. Those LASER ranging mirrors have been up there allowing us to measure this stuff for how long? 1969-1973, hmmm seems like the data base that you base your statistics on is a rather small population compared to the estimated 4.5 Billion year (geologic) age of the Earth. Now produce the daily Earth-Lunar LASER ranging dataset over the past 1 million years and it might even be a statistically significant sample population of data to run the statistics on.

All the Lunar LASER ranging data really tells us today is that it is not expanding at a rate that we can currently detect it at, at the limits of our measuring tools.

Does that same data you like so much also tell us that the Pacific ocean is shrinking as the Plate Tectonics models suggest we should be seeing? Or have the geodisic LASER ranging devices be in place and in enough places to really give us much data about that yet?

The heart of the issue is really that of Plate Subduction. If the Earth is not expanding or Growing, then the plates would have to either subduct or pile up, thrusting up the ends of both colliding plates into higher and higher ridges at the plate boundaries.

The Havard models of very recent studies are interesting to me in that they do not show the necessity for plate subduction, but rather a subsiding, via, a catastrophic runaway collapse of certain lower parts of the crust.

You have either Plate Subduction or a Growing (or Expanding Earth). It doesn't seem that there are many other alternatives, except that of subsiding parts of the crust.

There are indeed more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in our philosophies.

:reallyth:

Try looking up an obscure bit of work called Special and General relativity by an obscure Swiss patent clerk names Einstein.

Then study the work in the early part of the last century called Quantum mechanics.

the fact that you ask tells me you are unable or unwilling to do the required work, so once again the bunkers fail.

Neal Adams used the currently accepted (at least by some geologists) paleomagnetic dated magnetic reversals to base his model of the Growth on, what part grew and when. Part of his theory is subject to whether or not the paleomagnetic reversals are being correctly understood by the geology community in the main. Since it is not at all understood how the Earth even gets its magnetic field (the dynamo theory being full of holes) the question of using the common paleomagnetic magnetic reversal dating an apriori that Neal Adams has not challanged in his theory.

There are others like Dr. Russell Humphrey's and Dr. Aspden as well as other, who have much to say about the magnetic reversals as well as the mechanisms of how the Earth gets its magnetic field. And it is within reason to question the dating of these magnetic reversal lines, which Adams is using in his model. If the field reversals occured at a more frequent rate than paleographic methods suggest, then the growth or expansion or at least part of it could well have taken place in ancient history or even during "prehistory" periods.

Of course the old bugaboo of dating the rocks by the fossils found in them and then dating the fossils by the rocks they are found in is still present. Radiometric dating does have its draw backs as well, as all radiometric dating techniques have an apriori premise that the ratio of nuclear isotopes was a certain "assumed" amount "in the beginning".

Oh yeah, a writer of comic books is a scientific hero.

NOT!!!

He is a writer of fiction, like this hypothesis.