Is the earth expanding?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

skepticism is an interesting phenomena. When i was younger i had some strange neurological experiences that matched up with psychic phenomena (seeing EMF fields, out of body experience).. So for a while i was wondering what this all was. For times i would wonder if consciousness could exist outside the brain, so then i studied a load of neuro and realized there were rational explanations from a neuro view. I can tell you every neuro quantum theory out there and take it apart. Some of these theories have been entertained and worked on seriously at the highest level (think OrchOR industry).

If somebody comes to me know as a neuro know it all, i can say right no...it cant be psychic, due to this and that etc.. And debunk pretty well.

what i notice with EE hypothesis however is that some pretty advanced geologists are arguing for it.

again you can say like those neuro quantum guys they had the wrong idea...

but what is the motivation for these geologists ? The neuro guys had clear motivations.

A. They wanted a spiritual bridge from the death of god to something, anything as long as its not all over, when its over. Big motivation.

B. The idea of applying Einsteins work to the brain was not so crazy in the 1970's. You could propose and entertain this and be an interesting person in the neuro community. Status was to be had.

C. There were all kinds of application ideas like quantum computation, so you could suck in tech and Ai people for grants etc.

Very few of these geologists who are obviously highly intelligent, have anything to gain and a lot to lose. I dont think any of the current serious ones do it for religious beliefs. They risk their careers, lose job opps, become alientated from colleagues. And yet produce volumes of clearly written rational analysis.

There isnt even a practical application for EE, although lately due to the environment one group is investigating hydritic earth, but they dont even connect it to EE for their papers.

Whats the motivation then ?

I try to profile the proponents, and so far what i see is people who think this is interesting, and there is something in it, and damn the rest who dont think so. They have nothing to gain at all but the pursuit of truth and understanding about our world and perhaps implications for the universe itself.

Correct me if am wrong here, and i know there exceptions but overall this is how it comes across so far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hey i dont even know what im thinking myself !! i am collecting them all just to get an overview then if i feel creative perhaps they might integrate in some sudden flash !!

They are on one of my many other PCs.. I got to get all these damn things networked, but nothing you havent seen previously i am sure, and it will be good to have them pruned with those who know better.

I also dumped in your compression stuff you mentioned in that list as well....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a strange and unexpected thing has happened. The influx of EE proponents to rational skepticism has had a calming effect and the debate from some of the the ratskep members has actually approached from downright hostile to a reasonable discussion (hope it lasts).

I am amazed. I guess i was right. There are about half a dozen members there who just would like a decent debate....if good quality argument is put in that is. Quite heartening to see the younger members (on both sides) have genuine depth and interest, and dont log on to troll each other. The thread wrecking attempts by older members appear to be getting less and less vocal. Hackenslash the forum enforcer left in a three paragraph fury of cursing and said he would not return unless PMd.

Would i be right in thinking neal Adams videos contributed to bringing this to light to this new generation. He re-uploads the videos so the view count is always being reset. I think his total plays easily exceeded a milion.... which is a LOT for science VIDS (bit of random neal style caps there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

@rogerharris
Look you have obviously followed this debate for longer than I have. It is true there is nothing to financially gain from proving the Compressed Earth is true. (Some minor acknowledgement may be forthcoming but nothing is guaranteed.)
I am also doing it to try and understand where life first formed. At the moment I'm picking Mercury, but no one has even slightly agreed, so you are right it doesn't make friends or give a return.

 

Contact made with Marvin Herndon. Communication has to wait till next year. Well that is not long when you think about it.

 

Herndon sure is one interesting character.

i often ask these busy scientists, if they have an assistant of somebody they can delegate to answer a correspondence.

 

No this time it sounded personal reply. So at least he is still around, which becomes one of the first considerations at my age.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How are you defining a "pretty advanced geologist"?
How many individuals fit this category?

But individuals aside it does not matter whether one, ten or a thousand support the idea, what matters is the idea and EE is not well supported by the evidence, whereas plate tectonics is.

 

That's why I'm trying to marry the two together for I like the EE during the Early Earth and Plate tectonics at a later stage.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll try again:
How are you defining a "pretty advanced geologist"?
How many individuals fit this category?

 

Carey and Herndon are reasonably well educated.
OK it is hard thing to imagine how it works, but the thing that the plate tectonics alone they are relying a very flawed planet building theory, a theory is all based on speculation.
If that was the way planets where built then we are dependent on Plate tectonics but if you accept that the planets were put together during the late protosun period and it involved all the volatile mass available, the stuff that has later moved further out in the Solar System.
So it your need to use to a faulty planet building process that causes the problem.
Whereas if we look at using all the available matter in the protoplanetary disc the Earth compresses as a matter of fact due to the amount of gravitational pressure on it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem is sorting out how to tell who is right who is wrong. It seems that finding exoplanets has given us the best chance of seeing what happens else where.
So large gas giant planets close into the stars seem to be the norm, so the balance in the moment points to a compressed Earth as a viable option.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-formation-theory-busted-earth-science-space/
It may still be readable. but the 3 main theories of planet formation has to be rethought.

 

is the earth expanding

at last result is earth itself is a living thing and expanding like a tree. it is covered with thick bark.

http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volacano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS

http://yfrog.com/736a00d8341bf67c53ef0133fj Moon Shrinking & Bark

http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

 

is the earth expanding

this theory will reply solve all problems

 

If it is a tree what are the branches, leaves.
And the whole thing is susceptible to a chainsaw!
So are you going with both expanding Earth along with plate tectonics in combination as I do?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

how old are you jsispat ? I am not against young people putting forward ideas, if anything much of the great science came from the ideas born in youth, but age does have to be put into context for some aspects of online interaction.

 

there will always be lopsided evidence when science decides pool resources into one direction for a prolonged period. That there can still be resistance and inconsistencies when the evidence is scant and the supporters less resources and of lower scientific status would if anything be a sign there is something needing adressed. Presuming its not pure pig headedness and delusion of course.

From what i can make out mass EE proponents are frankly baffled by many problems with continental drift. i.e. This really marks out the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13WlAhA8Wu8

I guess screenshots are going to have to be extracted into a PP format for a forum or nobody will address this. Not many people click on vids or have the broadband to do so. and even less when there is no youtube function in a forum..

For any who do view this video it doesnt help when the CD side choose to willfully not address the question raised in this video (and more)...and evade, evade, evade....

thats why this is a good start to focus on, and I choose to remain on it. EE proponents are honest enough to say we dont know the mechanisms so CD proponents ought to say well those points sure are interesting, perhaps we require an explantion.

I see scientific theories not as truth seeking (for most) but in game terms of resource allocation. There are so many resources and struggle required to gain and encode, maintain factual information about reality it becomes an investement.

So you notice that when ideas come along they threaten that shared cognitive investment (which is now spread through all the universities and geological insitutions). Many of these are businesses. They arent run by truth seekers. Their prime motivation is to survive and maintain themselves. The fundamental basis of science of truth seeking is no more than a lip service exercise involving games. People detect that, and this is why we now have a problem.