|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |