Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Earth Is Growing Up, Subvert Your World View


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 09:18 AM

The interpretation of previous studies on the formation of earth are basically non science, because it is not based on the logic analysis of features of today's the earth, but subjective imagination or a belief, the most popular opinion is that the earth 4 billion 600 million years ago by the loose material had gathered, this view is obviously a simple imagination, not science conclusion.


If the earth were gradually gathered by loose matter, the surface of the earth would be very flat today, and there would be no mountains, and the composition of the earth's material would be even.So how did the earth come into being? We say that the earth has been growing up and the earth is a living body


Monitoring satellites have accumulated a great deal of evidence, and it is no doubt that the earth's radius increases by about 0.1-1 millimeters per year.and again look at the fact that the land is like many patches floating in the ocean, it is worth noting that the patches can be combined into a sphere with few slits, which can only be explained by the constant expansion of the earth and by using the theory of plate tectonics is not legitimate to explain.


The theory of expansion is a higher order than the theory of plate, and the plate says that the phenomenon that can be explained by the theory of plate can completely be explained by the theory of expansion, and on the contrary, not the same.The drift is an image and actually it is a course of expansion- -- land is expanding, and the sea is also expanding, and lands looks separating,and the earth we see with a magnifying glass today is the actual Earth several years later.Like the land, seabed is not liquid, there are lofty mountains and steep hills, if sea water evaporates, the surface of the earth is just a rugged shell, sea area is merely lower, never because of water poured into the high will drift away.


  The study found that sixty million years ago there were many huge animals, not only huge dinosaurs, dragonflies as big as eagles, this shows that the gravity acceleration of the earth's surface in the past was smaller than today, otherwise animals would be crushed by their weigh.While the volume of the earth increases its mass also increases,the celestial bodies including the earth and the sun form through gradual growing rather than the accumulation of matter in existence after the big bang. The celestial bodies, including the earth and the sun, have been forming gradually, rather than the accumulation of matter after the big bang. More and more scholars believe that the big bang theory is pseudo science of the world's largest and must be abandoned. As for the nebular doctrine, which is consistent with the big bang, both they think the stars formed by the gather of existing material, so the nebula doctrine is still wrong, and there is no evidence that the earth and the sun formed from the gather of nebula. New research shows that the temperature of the sun is getting higher and higher, and the brightness of the sun about 2 billion 700 million years ago is about 15/100 today,which is not explained by the Big Bang Theory. According to the big bang theory, the temperature of cosmic matter is gradually decreasing, the sun’s temperature should also be lowered rather than elevated without the exception.If the gravitational contraction causes the solar temperature to rise, then other celestial bodies also should be so, will certainly cause the temperature of the entire universe today is bigger than that after the big bang, when material had not been able to gather, so lead to the big bang theory cannot be consistent.The increase of mass of the sun or the earth is the direct cause of the increase of its temperature, which can be explained by mass-luminosity ratio.


  The possible mechanisms leading to the expansion of the earth are generally considered as follows: 1, thermal effects; 2, chemical changes or phase changes in the earth's interior; 3, the slow decrease of the gravitational constant. Although in the history of the earth, especially in the early Earth, there might exist pure growth of heat, thus there might exist a slight expansion of the earth as a whole, but the effect seems only can cause some deep trench, there can be no greater impact. Comparing the energy required for expansion with the energy available in the chemical bond, to estimate whether the chemical changes in the earth's interior or the phase transition can cause massive expansion of the earth, discovered that the energy the earth's radius expands uniformly to 20% to require is equal to the energy needed to break almost all the chemical bonds of the molecules that make up the earth.found. As a result, the chemical changes in the earth's interior matter do not produce enough energy to cause massive expansion of the continent. It is also impossible to explain the earth's radius to increase by 100km by estimating the energy obtained from the decrease of the gravitational constant.


This constant expansion can only be explained by admitting that matter is continuously generated in the earth. The matter is continuously generated in the earth, the internal pressure is more and more big, the temperature is higher and higher, the accumulation goes to a certain extent, it will erupt forming earthquakes and so on, and thus establish a new balance, continue to occur again and again the earth is more and more big, the mountain of the surface rising, as the tree is bigger the skin is more deep grooves, formation phenomenon like tree rings is the symbol of the earth is growing. Stratigraphic phenomena like the rings of a tree is the symbol of earth's growth. Usually think the earthquake is the result of the impact of plates, the apparent lack energy of continuous occurrence, the earth has existed for billions of years, even if there exists occasional relative motion, soon it will be exhausted by friction, it is impossible that there seemed to be getting bigger plate impact. To put it back, even if there is an impact, it is also a manifestation of the inhomogeneity of the earth’s expansion, once leaving the expansion the impact will cease immediately. The phenomenon of Like attracts like on the earth, such as oil field, coal mine, mountains, plains, are the result of like causes like and can be explained by the theory of gather of galaxy formation. Oil and coal are also gradually generated and are being produced, but not the remains of ancient creatures, which can be explained by the inedible nature of oil. If coal is evolved from the ancient trees, so coal should be mixed with a lot of clods and stones, and in fact coal is quite clean. The moon is also growing gradually, and ring mountains on the moon are just the grown craters.The mass of celestial bodies increases from the work by negative pressure, dm +pdv=0, and meets energy law. The calculation shows that the radius of celestial body r is proportional to the cosmic scale factor, that is, r=kR(t), the mass change is dm=3Hmdt, and H is the Hubble parameter. In short, celestial growth is the local effect of space-time expansion, the universe create of spacetime with it creases matter, for example, the earth’s radius one year today increases 0.47 mm, weight increases one trillion and two hundred billion tons.

Edited by xps13579, 05 July 2017 - 05:11 PM.


#2 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 09:22 AM

 More and more scholars believe that the big bang theory is pseudo science of the world's largest and must be abandoned. 

 

Can we have some references for this? Your post is meaningless unless supported.



#3 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 04:55 PM

there are countless people against the big bang, such as Richard Lieu, Dominik Schwarz,Glenn Starkman, Richard Lieu, Jonathan Mittaz, Roberto Abraham, Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud....................

#4 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 05:39 PM

The constant growth of celestial bodies such as the earth is the local effect of whole cosmological expansion,new matter continuously creates in the interior of a celestial body while the celestial body expands following Hubble law. Through studing the growth of the earth, can set up gradualistic cosmology alternative to the big bang theory that all matter created instantaneously. So it is important meaning to study the formation of the earth, as long as the theory of the earth's formation is denied the big bang theory will be disproved either.

#5 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 05:40 PM

there are countless people against the big bang, such as Richard Lieu, Dominik Schwarz,Glenn Starkman, Richard Lieu, Jonathan Mittaz, Roberto Abraham, Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud....................

 

 

This one? 

 



#6 billvon

billvon

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 05:54 PM

The interpretation of previous studies on the formation of earth are basically non science, because it is not based on the logic analysis of features of today's the earth, but subjective imagination or a belief, the most popular opinion is that the earth 4 billion 600 million years ago by the loose material had gathered, this view is obviously a simple imagination, not science conclusion.


If the earth were gradually gathered by loose matter, the surface of the earth would be very flat today, and there would be no mountains, and the composition of the earth's material would be even

That's ridiculous.  The Earth was molten early on because of all the energy of the infalling material.  That meant that many elements (like iron) self-sorted.  Then as the crust cooled with time it solidified.  Then, as the solid crust was acted upon by forces like vulcanism and convection of the asthenosphere, plate tectonics began - and that eventually gave rise to mountains.


  • Moontanman likes this

#7 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 06:34 PM

 

That's ridiculous.  The Earth was molten early on because of all the energy of the infalling material.  That meant that many elements (like iron) self-sorted.  Then as the crust cooled with time it solidified.  Then, as the solid crust was acted upon by forces like vulcanism and convection of the asthenosphere, plate tectonics began - and that eventually gave rise to mountains.

 
The expansion theory is more advanced than the plate theory, can explain more questions and phenomenons than plate plate tectonics. the current theory of the earth formation needs to be examined entirely

#8 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 July 2017 - 06:47 PM

   
The expansion theory is more advanced than the plate theory, can explain more questions and phenomenons than plate plate tectonics. the current theory of the earth formation needs to be examined entirely

 

 

again, expanding earth my ***.... 



#9 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 10:47 PM

WTF?

 

You claim

 

The theory of expansion is a higher order than the theory of plate, and the plate says that the phenomenon that can be explained by the theory of plate can completely be explained by the theory of expansion, and on the contrary, not the same.The drift is an image and actually it is a course of expansion- -- land is expanding, and the sea is also expanding, and lands looks separating,and the earth we see with a magnifying glass today is the actual Earth several years later.Like the land, seabed is not liquid, there are lofty mountains and steep hills, if sea water evaporates, the surface of the earth is just a rugged shell, sea area is merely lower, never because of water poured into the high will drift away.

 

Even if I were inclined to believe any of the unsupported nonsense you say, I can't parse this.

 

Monitoring satellites have accumulated a great deal of evidence, and it is no doubt that the earth's radius increases by about 0.1-1 millimeters per year.and again look at the fact that the land is like many patches floating in the ocean, it is worth noting that the patches can be combined into a sphere with few slits, which can only be explained by the constant expansion of the earth and by using the theory of plate tectonics is not legitimate to explain.

 

I agree that monitoring satellites have accumulated a great deal of evidence, but unfortunately for you, these satellites don't support your claim that Earth's radius is increasing.  GPS satellites are only accurate if they correctly monitor the time taken for a signal to pass from them to the receiver.  I have come across no articles that show that this well measured distance is changing due to the expansion of the Earth.  As such, I find it more likely that you are making a claim that is both unsupported and nonsensical.

 

Why should I take anything you claim to be an accurate description of reality when I know of evidence that specifically contradicts your claim?


Edited by JMJones0424, 07 July 2017 - 10:58 PM.


#10 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:25 AM

 

WTF?
 
You claim
 
 
Even if I were inclined to believe any of the unsupported nonsense you say, I can't parse this.
 

 
I agree that monitoring satellites have accumulated a great deal of evidence, but unfortunately for you, these satellites don't support your claim that Earth's radius is increasing.  GPS satellites are only accurate if they correctly monitor the time taken for a signal to pass from them to the receiver.  I have come across no articles that show that this well measured distance is changing due to the expansion of the Earth.  As such, I find it more likely that you are making a claim that is both unsupported and nonsensical.
 
Why should I take anything you claim to be an accurate description of reality when I know of evidence that specifically contradicts your claim?

 
The author is introducing advanced truth, If you can't understand it, to be roll away, no need to bother you this kind of fool

#11 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 01:21 AM

Is this thread written in some kind of code? All  I can see is numerous lines with " " and ungrammatical (and to me meaningless) sentences.


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#12 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1060 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 04:55 AM

Is this thread written in some kind of code? All  I can see is numerous lines with " " and ungrammatical (and to me meaningless) sentences.

 

I think nbsp means "no bullshit posting"

 

But then why does he follow that up with a boatload of bs? :confused:



#13 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:05 AM

It's all too heavy for me. I thought the nbsp was some kind of formatting error. I hate these idiots who think they are in possession of "advanced truth" and that everybody else is too stupid to understand. There must be a medical expression for that state of mind.  :innocent:



#14 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:08 AM

 

Is this thread written in some kind of code? All  I can see is numerous lines with " " and ungrammatical (and to me meaningless) sentences.

 
It is a garbled, ignore it

#15 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 12:10 PM

... Oil and coal are also gradually generated and are being produced, but not the remains of ancient creatures, which can be explained by the inedible nature of oil. ...

Your assertions are full of errors, but I'll just point out one here. Oil is edible.
Bacteria Sucked Up 200,000 Tons of Oil After BP Spill

... Researcher John Kessler, of the University of Rochester, said the hydrocarbon-eating bacteria removed the majority of the oil and gas trapped in underwater layers more than a half-mile below the surface. But the bacteria's appetite seemed to die down five months after the April 2010 explosion that set off the environmental disaster, Kessler and his team found. ...


  • Moontanman likes this

#16 xps13579

xps13579

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:30 PM

Your assertions are full of errors, but I'll just point out one here. Oil is edible.
Bacteria Sucked Up 200,000 Tons of Oil After BP Spill

If oil came from the conversion of the animal's body, would not be so focused, in fact, the procedure with which  the earth  made mountains, soil, coal and oil was the same, and they all are not to let people use


Edited by xps13579, 08 July 2017 - 05:39 PM.


#17 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:57 PM

If oil came from the conversion of the animal's body, would not be so focused, in fact, the procedure with which  the earth  made mountains, soil, coal and oil was the same, and they all are not to let people use

And we all are not to alloweth you to useth the internet sayeth the Great Spaghetti Monster. :nahnahbooboo: