A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PLANETARY EXPANSION VS EARTH EXPANSION ( PE vs EE)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th 07, 04:56 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.physics,sci.astro,aus.science
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default PLANETARY EXPANSION VS EARTH EXPANSION ( PE vs EE)

alt.origins ng deleted
************************

On 13 août, 21:25, Mark Isaak wrote:
* On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:58:01 -0400, Cj wrote:
* "Ye Old One" wrote If the Earth , or any
other planet,
* is increasing in mass then supply
* the measurements that prove it.
*
* Put up or shut up.
*
* If the earth has been growing in mass over time the orbit of the
planet
* must have altered quite significantly over the centuries. There
are
* archaeological data that suggest there has been no measurable
change in
* the earth's orbit for the last 4000 years. Howcum?
*
* If the mass which is added has the same momentum as the original
earth,
* then the growth in mass would not alter Earth's orbit. It would
alter
* the Moon's orbit, but I am not aware of any archaeological data
giving
* the position of the moon thousands of years ago.
*
* But that "if" which starts the previous paragraph is significant.
Since
* the mechanism of added mass is a complete mystery, we have no
reason to
* expect its momentum to match our own. It would be just as
reasonable to
* expect added mass to knock the earth around the galaxy like a
pinball.
* One might hypothesize that the new mass's momentum is somehow
influenced
* by existing mass (e.g., maybe the existing mass simply reproduces
* somehow), but then you run into problems with angular momentem.
For the
* expanding earth to work, the added mass has keep the earth rotating
at
* nearly the same rate over hundreds of thousands of years (after
* correcting for tidal drag). This requires constantly and precisely
*changing* the earth's angular momentum as it expands. To get the added

* mass to do that would take a miracle. Another miracle, that is,
besides
* the mass appearing in the first place.*
*
* --
* Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net

No mass is added, Mark.
On the contrary mass is lost at all time through the evasion of
lighter elements in outer space at the stratospheric level
Further still through something which can be observed in the radio
active process, heavier atoms are processed in continue in lighter
elements
( the cause being indeed the PE process but the mechanism shall not be
expressed here )

What is noticeable in the Planetary Expansion theory, of which EE is
only a particular aspect, is the decrease of density as the planets
drift away on the Ecliptic.
There is a coherence in it all and you cannot on this line disconnect
the subject from the object, making ref here to the fact that :
# People see in things only what they want to see, and they want to
see only what they know #
As J. Taylor pointed out, George sees Creationists everywhere but
this simply because George is a Creationist himself
( Creation by Evolution legerdemain and other scientific "Deus ex
Machina" schemes, opposing indeed the doctrine of Chaos )
Hence George cannot learn anything new anymore...as many George knows
it all

Now look at the figures.
Densities of

Mercury 6.2
Venus 5
Earth 5.52
Mars 3.8
Jupîter 1.36
Saturn 0.7
Uranus 1.27
Neptun 1.20

There is obviously a pattern which is very coherent when matched to
the Law of Titus-Bode regarding the positioning of planets. In clear
no Evolution half-hazard placing as some of the George 's type would
like to impose. On the contrary a very precise & harmonious
construction. .. and in this the Creationists although quite let
astray in their miracle like construction of the Universe ( or at
least that part which we assume perceiving ) have a very sensitive
approach indeed. Quite more intelligent that that random no-purpose
alleged scientific castle of cards which some Academic Inquisition
imposes upon Humanity.

I saw some reference to Milankovitch cycles after Serbian civil
engineer and mathematician Milankovi . Unfortunately the poor man was
a dude since his "Stages of Glaciations" are pure invention. Indeed no
Glaciations ever took place and Eskers, Drumlins, Erratics etc which
those Cuvier, Agassiz, Buckland, Murchison & Co saw as the
demonstration of their beliefs are simply due to other causes ! Why no
Glaciations by the way ? ... thousands of reasons but one in
particular and the main one is the very Low Pressure of Fusion of Ice
which cannot in any circumstances generate any erosion of rock
formations at all In the True Geology approach there is a concept
which can be verified in the field anytime and any place : This is the
" Cyclonic Granulometric Pattern of Pleistocene Sedimentation ", and
this observation which anyone can make & which explains why Ergs,
Regs, Loess, Cyclopean Chaos points out clearly to some other type
of levelling process than the one of slow slope bound ploughing
Glaciers. Still open minds are required to simply accept to see !

Don Findlay is alluding in his very comprehensive discourse above
to :
Quote :
there has been no attempt to see anything new in it beyond what
existed more than half a century ago. Actually, almost a century ago.
We're still rumpling tablecloths to make mountains. That in itself
is a very strong indictment of what 'science' is (the gravy train of
consensus), against what it is supposed to be about: Exploration of
the Unknown
Unquote

This is a most terrible connotation of the present state of Geology.
Completely hooked on the geriatric theory of Universities spouted
forth a century & 1/2 ago. The fossil brains of the present Academics
are still in phase such mechanistic concepts, and this is just like
the world had stood still all through all these years...and this is
not those lame & tame Geo faculties of Curtin, Monash or the ANU which
will change the situation. Great breakthrough in understanding need
intellectual courage and synthesis vision, and this such qualities
which those people are singularly lacking indeed. The best and I can
name here Don Findlay, are carefully kept at bay by fear that they
should rock the boat of their parasitic comfort Very sad !

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert

Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~


  #2  
Old August 15th 07, 09:16 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.physics,sci.astro,aus.science
malibu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default PLANETARY EXPANSION VS EARTH EXPANSION ( PE vs EE)

On Aug 15, 9:56 am, wrote:
alt.origins ng deleted
************************

On 13 août, 21:25, Mark Isaak wrote:
* On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:58:01 -0400, Cj wrote:
* "Ye Old One" wrote If the Earth , or any
other planet,
* is increasing in mass then supply
* the measurements that prove it.
*
* Put up or shut up.
*
* If the earth has been growing in mass over time the orbit of the
planet
* must have altered quite significantly over the centuries. There
are
* archaeological data that suggest there has been no measurable
change in
* the earth's orbit for the last 4000 years. Howcum?
*
* If the mass which is added has the same momentum as the original
earth,
* then the growth in mass would not alter Earth's orbit. It would
alter
* the Moon's orbit, but I am not aware of any archaeological data
giving
* the position of the moon thousands of years ago.
*
* But that "if" which starts the previous paragraph is significant.
Since
* the mechanism of added mass is a complete mystery, we have no
reason to
* expect its momentum to match our own. It would be just as
reasonable to
* expect added mass to knock the earth around the galaxy like a
pinball.
* One might hypothesize that the new mass's momentum is somehow
influenced
* by existing mass (e.g., maybe the existing mass simply reproduces
* somehow), but then you run into problems with angular momentem.
For the
* expanding earth to work, the added mass has keep the earth rotating
at
* nearly the same rate over hundreds of thousands of years (after
* correcting for tidal drag). This requires constantly and precisely *changing* the earth's angular momentum as it expands. To get the added

* mass to do that would take a miracle. Another miracle, that is,
besides
* the mass appearing in the first place.*
*
* --
* Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net

No mass is added, Mark.
On the contrary mass is lost at all time through the evasion of
lighter elements in outer space at the stratospheric level
Further still through something which can be observed in the radio
active process, heavier atoms are processed in continue in lighter
elements
( the cause being indeed the PE process but the mechanism shall not be
expressed here )

What is noticeable in the Planetary Expansion theory, of which EE is
only a particular aspect, is the decrease of density as the planets
drift away on the Ecliptic.
There is a coherence in it all and you cannot on this line disconnect
the subject from the object, making ref here to the fact that :
# People see in things only what they want to see, and they want to
see only what they know #
As J. Taylor pointed out, George sees Creationists everywhere but
this simply because George is a Creationist himself
( Creation by Evolution legerdemain and other scientific "Deus ex
Machina" schemes, opposing indeed the doctrine of Chaos )
Hence George cannot learn anything new anymore...as many George knows
it all

Now look at the figures.
Densities of

Mercury 6.2
Venus 5
Earth 5.52
Mars 3.8
Jupîter 1.36
Saturn 0.7
Uranus 1.27
Neptun 1.20

There is obviously a pattern which is very coherent when matched to
the Law of Titus-Bode regarding the positioning of planets. In clear
no Evolution half-hazard placing as some of the George 's type would
like to impose. On the contrary a very precise & harmonious
construction. .. and in this the Creationists although quite let
astray in their miracle like construction of the Universe ( or at
least that part which we assume perceiving ) have a very sensitive
approach indeed. Quite more intelligent that that random no-purpose
alleged scientific castle of cards which some Academic Inquisition
imposes upon Humanity.

I saw some reference to Milankovitch cycles after Serbian civil
engineer and mathematician Milankovi . Unfortunately the poor man was
a dude since his "Stages of Glaciations" are pure invention. Indeed no
Glaciations ever took place and Eskers, Drumlins, Erratics etc which
those Cuvier, Agassiz, Buckland, Murchison & Co saw as the
demonstration of their beliefs are simply due to other causes ! Why no
Glaciations by the way ? ... thousands of reasons but one in
particular and the main one is the very Low Pressure of Fusion of Ice
which cannot in any circumstances generate any erosion of rock
formations at all In the True Geology approach there is a concept
which can be verified in the field anytime and any place : This is the
" Cyclonic Granulometric Pattern of Pleistocene Sedimentation ", and
this observation which anyone can make & which explains why Ergs,
Regs, Loess, Cyclopean Chaos points out clearly to some other type
of levelling process than the one of slow slope bound ploughing
Glaciers. Still open minds are required to simply accept to see !

Don Findlay is alluding in his very comprehensive discourse above
to :
Quote :
there has been no attempt to see anything new in it beyond what
existed more than half a century ago. Actually, almost a century ago.
We're still rumpling tablecloths to make mountains. That in itself
is a very strong indictment of what 'science' is (the gravy train of
consensus), against what it is supposed to be about: Exploration of
the Unknown
Unquote

This is a most terrible connotation of the present state of Geology.
Completely hooked on the geriatric theory of Universities spouted
forth a century & 1/2 ago. The fossil brains of the present Academics
are still in phase such mechanistic concepts, and this is just like
the world had stood still all through all these years...and this is
not those lame & tame Geo faculties of Curtin, Monash or the ANU which
will change the situation. Great breakthrough in understanding need
intellectual courage and synthesis vision, and this such qualities
which those people are singularly lacking indeed. The best and I can
name here Don Findlay, are carefully kept at bay by fear that they
should rock the boat of their parasitic comfort Very sad !

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert

Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~



If planets are only increasing in
size, but not in mass, surface gravity
will decrease, not increase.

John

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PLANETARY EXPANSION VS EARTH EXPANSION ( PE vs EE) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 August 13th 07 08:10 AM
PLANETARY EXPANSION VS EARTH EXPANSION ( PE vs EE) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 August 12th 07 10:45 PM
"Earth Expansion" crank theory QUESTIONS [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 February 6th 07 01:39 AM
Decreasing Gravity and the Expansion of the Earth Louis Nielsen Astronomy Misc 4 January 2nd 05 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.