What really killed the dinosaurs?

[Neuro]

This is a very interesting theory, encompassing the formation of planets and moons, the development of life on earth, why there were no landliving animals or plants prior to 400 million years ago, how the dinosaurs and ferns could become so huge. Why plants and animals prior to 65 million years were not adapted to seasonal variation, but after that they were, and why the moon is where it is, and only showing one side...

The PDF explaining all this is only 16 pages, but it may rock the foundations of everything re the history of earth you thought you knew. The theory is very compelling mainly because it's simplicity and it's logic...

Read it:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/54966937/download?commit=Download+Now&secret_password=

[vacuum]

If this is what I think it is, it aligns with what I already know from a totally different source. I'll read it and update.

[Awoke]

If there is a way to post it here, it would be appreciated. (Scribd.com is a filtered site where I work)

[ximmy]

Humans did... Here is an early recording of an example...
Once they figured it out... dinner was served...
Them little t-rex teenagers were the fiercest of beasties...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bgeq6hAlU

[Grog]

Several theories in the document but where are the citations? No references at all? The earlier part of the work seemed interesting but dove into whack in the last few pages.

I can entertain the thought of bulging around the earth's center, and possibly the tearing off of part of this bulge as the cataclysmic event that destroyed the dinosaurs. The K-T as he says.

The making the moon and the dark side of the moon being the old surface of the earth... Not buying it.

When the Chineese come back with a brontosarus thigh bone from their moon visit, I'll change my tune.

[StreetsOfGold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQIF7Yh3hI

[Neuro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQIF7Yh3hI
That is a 2 and half hour video. How about a synopsis? My internet connection is SSLOOWWW....

[letter_factory]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tptaLdjHTI

[mightymanx]

Da-Joos did it duuh.

[Serpo]

http://listverse.com/2011/02/22/top-10-dinosaurs-that-arent-what-they-were/
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/field_guide_trex1.jpg?w=550&h=298

[Neuro]

Several theories in the document but where are the citations? No references at all? The earlier part of the work seemed interesting but dove into whack in the last few pages.

I can entertain the thought of bulging around the earth's center, and possibly the tearing off of part of this bulge as the cataclysmic event that destroyed the dinosaurs. The K-T as he says.

The making the moon and the dark side of the moon being the old surface of the earth... Not buying it.

When the Chineese come back with a brontosarus thigh bone from their moon visit, I'll change my tune.

No, you wouldn't, you would claim they made it. Anyhow, where would that torn of fragment of earth be today? I think the theory is interesting. A cooling planet shrinks... Increases speed of rotation, until centrifugal forces around the equator equals gravitational forces and a piece of the crust is thrown into space and becomes a moon and the planet slows down it's rotation, the momentum in the system remains the same...

[Bigjon]

If you listen to McCanney he explains how rogue planetary sized bodies roam through interstellar space and our solar system as it travels through the universe encounters those objects. Some of these objects are captured by the sun's gravitational field and are pulled in to become moons or planets. One case in point is a few thousand years back Venus was captured by Jupiter and then had an encounter with Mars ripping all the water off of that planet. All these encounters are at a distance, no direct collisions. Venus next had a gravitational encounter with Earth and Earth being the larger body won the tug of war by ripping the water from Mars off of Venus. The aftermath is that Venus has now settled into a stable orbit around the Sun.

Velikovsky is the author of these theories, which are derived from his study of ancient civilizations calender systems and other writings. He wrote several books on this subject, Earths in collision is one that comes to mind.

I subscribe to the growing Earth theory in which our Earth captures x amount of material, plus I believe there is an inward flux of aether that creates gravity and contributes matter to the planet. As the planet grows so does it's gravity. Animals the size of the dinosaurs are not viable in our current gravitational field.

[Neuro]

It is impossible that Venus would be able to rip the water from Mars. Or earth from Venus. The planets are similar sized thus have a similar gravitational pull, and to rip the water away the two planets would need to get so close they would collide, and become one, further Venus ending up in an almost circular orbit in the same plane as the rest of the solar system would be impossible... Your source needs to read up about basic Newtonian physics bigjon!

[Awoke]

The making the moon and the dark side of the moon being the old surface of the earth... Not buying it.

When the Chineese come back with a brontosarus thigh bone from their moon visit, I'll change my tune.


Proof for the skeptic:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lehacsZb831qd5hkoo1_500.png

[mamboni]

Fantastic theory. The conservation of angular momentum and mass when one looks at the earth and the moon as one and then separate bodies is remarkable and hard to believe as coincidental. Does mineral analysis of moon rocks support their origin from the earth's crust? Interesting that moon and earth rocks are of the same age, about 3.6 billion years.

[chad]

won't open for me. what's the theory?

[mamboni]

won't open for me. what's the theory?

Here goes:

62 million years ago, earth was spinning much faster and on a fixed axis: 7 hour day and no seasons. At equator there is perpetual hot tropical climate with near zero gravity. Dinosaurs evolve into giants. Then as earth core cools and shrinks, cracks form in outer crust layer. Gradually, due to cooling, shrinking at outer crust and centrifugal forces, four fifths of this crust spins off of earth, carrying dinosaurs with it, into outer space. Because of conservation of angular momentum, earth rotation slows to 24 hour day and axis tilts 23 degrees and thus the four seasons are born. The void left by four fifths of missing crust becomes our sea bed and the oceans form around the fifth of the crust left behind called Pangea. Pangea would fragment over many millions of years into the five continents. The slower rotation resulted in the much higher gravity we know today. This high gravity and cool seasons killed off the large reptilian dinosaurs and ushered in the age of the smaller mammals and reptiles.

And the ejected crust orbiting the earth would eventual coalesce into the object we call the moon. Because of it's insufficient mass and gravity, the moon lost it's atmosphere and water. So the dinosaurs on the moon got fooked!

How's that for an executive summary?

[chad]

Here goes:

62 million years ago, earth was spinning much faster and on a fixed axis: 7 hour day and no seasons. At equator there is perpetual hot tropical climate with near zero gravity. Dinosaurs evolve into giants. Then as earth core cools and shrinks, cracks form in outer crust layer. Gradually, due to cooling, shrinking at outer crust and centrifugal forces, four fifths of this crust spins off of earth, carrying dinosaurs with it, into outer space. Because of conservation of angular momentum, earth rotation slows to 24 hour day and axis tilts 23 degrees and thus the four seasons are born. The void left by four fifths of missing crust becomes our sea bed and the oceans form around the fifth of the crust left behind called Pangea. Pangea would fragment over many millions of years into the five continents. The slower rotation resulted in the much higher gravity we know today. This high gravity and cool seasons killed off the large reptilian dinosaurs and ushered in the age of the smaller mammals and reptiles.

And the ejected crust orbiting the earth would eventual coalesce into the object we call the moon. Because of it's insufficient mass and gravity, the moon lost it's atmosphere and water. So the dinosaurs on the moon got fooked!

How's that for an executive summary?

that actually makes a lot more sense than "a giant asteroid killed them."

[DMac]

that actually makes a lot more sense than "a giant asteroid killed them."

lol

[Bigjon]

It is impossible that Venus would be able to rip the water from Mars. Or earth from Venus. The planets are similar sized thus have a similar gravitational pull, and to rip the water away the two planets would need to get so close they would collide, and become one, further Venus ending up in an almost circular orbit in the same plane as the rest of the solar system would be impossible... Your source needs to read up about basic Newtonian physics bigjon!

Well one look at Mars says that the planet was a water planet in the not too distant past. The erosion patterns of the rivers and oceans are plainly visible. Where did the water go?

Venus is bigger than Mars and smaller than Earth. The Mayan Calender is based on the ancient orbit of Venus. They called Venus "The Plumed Serpent God of the Night Sky".

[Awoke]

As much as some people think it's implausible that everything was created by God the creator, I have to say that the whole "Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon" seems much more implausible.
But of course I'm biased, because I believe in the creator.

[Neuro]

Excellent summary Mamboni! The fascinating thing is I can't find any physical laws contradicting any of the proposed events in the article. What a thing to witness though, most of earths crust breaking off floating up in space... WHOA!

[mamboni]

Excellent summary Mamboni! The fascinating thing is I can't find any physical laws contradicting any of the proposed events in the article. What a thing to witness though, most of earths crust breaking off floating up in space... WHOA!

Well, let's hope it doesn't happen again...unless limited to Israel and New Jersey. LOL

[Neuro]

Well one look at Mars says that the planet was a water planet in the not too distant past. The erosion patterns of the rivers and oceans are plainly visible. Where did the water go?

Venus is bigger than Mars and smaller than Earth. The Mayan Calender is based on the ancient orbit of Venus. They called Venus "The Plumed Serpent God of the Night Sky".
Mars may have had water at the surface in the not too distant past. But assuming that Venus swishing by scavenging all Mars water is still impossible. I understand the idea, that Venus greater gravity sort of vacuumed Mars water from Mars who has around half Venus gravity, but since the water was at Mars surface the gravity pull of the hypothetical Venus close to Mars must have been greater than Martian gravity at Mars surface, which means that Venus must have been so close that the planets would have collided, we are talking about a 1000 kilometers or so between the planets which is 1/400th of the current distance between moon and earth... Still most of that distance between the planets would be in near total vacuum.

The earth taking Venus water is even more weird, cause earth and Venus are almost of the same mass, which means that Venus would be at a distance of less than 100 kilometers from earth, for earth to be able to scavenge the water of Venus.

Then after these two supposed encounters. Venus supposedly ended up in an almost perfectly circular orbit around the sun. And Mars and earth remained in circular orbits, and all of them in the same plane around the sun.

Yeah!

[Bigjon]

Mars may have had water at the surface in the not too distant past. But assuming that Venus swishing by scavenging all Mars water is still impossible. I understand the idea, that Venus greater gravity sort of vacuumed Mars water from Mars who has around half Venus gravity, but since the water was at Mars surface the gravity pull of the hypothetical Venus close to Mars must have been greater than Martian gravity at Mars surface, which means that Venus must have been so close that the planets would have collided, we are talking about a 1000 kilometers or so between the planets which is 1/400th of the current distance between moon and earth... Still most of that distance between the planets would be in near total vacuum.

The earth taking Venus water is even more weird, cause earth and Venus are almost of the same mass, which means that Venus would be at a distance of less than 100 kilometers from earth, for earth to be able to scavenge the water of Venus.

Then after these two supposed encounters. Venus supposedly ended up in an almost perfectly circular orbit around the sun. And Mars and earth remained in circular orbits, and all of them in the same plane around the sun.

Yeah!

Well I disagree with your analysis, because as the two bodies approach their relative speeds will increase making a near encounter and a flyby much more likely. The evidence of near encounters with Venus as well as other planetary sized objects is hard to deny when you consider all the evidence. Plate tectonics is a fairy tale when it comes to explaining where mountains come from. Mountains are the result of close encounters with planetary sized objects which cause the upper mantle to shift on Earth's core. Before the Venus event the Earth's north pole was a region just north of the great lakes. One piece of evidence is that woolly mammoths found frozen in place in the far north of Siberia, had undigested semi-tropical plants in their throats and stomachs, indicating that they were transported some 3000 miles north in a matter of minutes.

As far as Venus settling into a near circular orbit, McCanney provides the explanation that the electrical nature of the solar system creates these circular orbits. The sun puts out a relatively steady stream of positive current which creates an electrical gradient from strong near the sun to weak at a distance beyond the orbit of Pluto. Any planetary object that enters the solar system at a high gradient takes on an increasing charge that discharges its local environment much as a bug in a bug zapper. This charged object creates an incoming electric current that sucks in all the surrounding space debris, causing the object to grow in size. The changing size and electrical current serve to slow the object as it approaches the Sun, which allows the solar system to capture a new planetary body. The orbit becomes more stable as it approaches a more circular orbit, because it stays in the same relative electrical gradient.

[BrewTech]

As much as some people think it's implausible that everything was created by God the creator, I have to say that the whole "Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon" seems much more implausible.
But of course I'm biased, because I believe in the creator.

I'm not sure why the creator wouldn't have created things to change and evolve. What's with the belief that God's creations were all static in nature?

That's the part about creationism that trips me up.

[Book]

Da-Joos did it duuh.



http://www.thejc.com/files/imagecache/body_portrait/Copy-of-Dinosaur-head-with-kippah.jpg

[Grog]

As much as some people think it's implausible that everything was created by God the creator, I have to say that the whole "Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon" seems much more implausible.
But of course I'm biased, because I believe in the creator.

I agree with the "'Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon' seems more implausible". You are right on with that statement.

If chunks of the earth flew off, I'd hazzard to guess they would end up looking more like an asteriod belt than a moon.

-----

My main problem with this article is that it is all over the place. It starts with one assumption, then builds upon that assumption to make further assumptions, not proving or offering citations and references for any of it. The author could have written a paper on just one of the concepts in the paper, and concentrated on it, e.g. the concept of life emerging from the seas during the Devonian only because there was no even land present prior to this time. That concept is worthy of a thesis on its own but the author just poses it as fact and moves on, presuming that he has proven it.

There are 20+ little factiods sprinkled throuought the article with no citation of an orignal source for verification. The author says, "I published this analysis along with an in-depth rigorous mathematical proof in 1993. I sent copies of the publication to scientists around the world, including all of the scientists at the USGS. It seems the analysis was then too far outside their accepted paradigm. It was completely ignored. But that was their problem, not mine."

If the author's analysis was written in a style similar to this article; the scientists at the USGS and 'around the world' probably ignored it because it was written like a high school paper. Honestly, most papers I wrote in high school would have received an F for this quality of work. Lack of references is shoddy.

The article has some interesting concepts in it, but they are more in the realm of beer-drinking discussions and not serious science.

[BrewTech]

I'm not sure why the creator wouldn't have created things to change and evolve. What's with the belief that God's creations were all static in nature?

That's the part about creationism that trips me up.

Lemme edit that statement of mine to avoid misunderstanding. I do believe that there is a creator and that we definitely witness creation all around us. I just believe we are seeing the ongoing evolution of a basic creation that was a lot different in its original design.

[Neuro]

Well, let's hope it doesn't happen again...unless limited to Israel and New Jersey. LOL

Now, that would convince me of the question re god! ;D

[Awoke]

Lemme edit that statement of mine to avoid misunderstanding. I do believe that there is a creator and that we definitely witness creation all around us. I just believe we are seeing the ongoing evolution of a basic creation that was a lot different in its original design.

Yeah, I was going to say to your original post that I never asserted that God wanted to create a static universe. Things are always changing.

I have some questions for you BigJon. I'm not on the attack, please remember that I can't watch any videos, and if there are any pictures posted, I am not seeing them either.


The evidence of near encounters with Venus as well as other planetary sized objects is hard to deny when you consider all the evidence.
What evidence?


Plate tectonics is a fairy tale when it comes to explaining where mountains come from. Mountains are the result of close encounters with planetary sized objects which cause the upper mantle to shift on Earth's core.
How can you say that with authority?



Before the Venus event the Earth's north pole was a region just north of the great lakes. One piece of evidence is that woolly mammoths found frozen in place in the far north of Siberia, had undigested semi-tropical plants in their throats and stomachs, indicating that they were transported some 3000 miles north in a matter of minutes.
Now that is super-interesting. I hadn't heard about that. Pretty amazing actually, regarding the mammoths. I have to assume the "venus event" is detailed in the video?


As far as Venus settling into a near circular orbit, McCanney provides the explanation that the electrical nature of the solar system creates these circular orbits. The sun puts out a relatively steady stream of positive current which creates an electrical gradient from strong near the sun to weak at a distance beyond the orbit of Pluto. Any planetary object that enters the solar system at a high gradient takes on an increasing charge that discharges its local environment much as a bug in a bug zapper. This charged object creates an incoming electric current that sucks in all the surrounding space debris, causing the object to grow in size. The changing size and electrical current serve to slow the object as it approaches the Sun, which allows the solar system to capture a new planetary body. The orbit becomes more stable as it approaches a more circular orbit, because it stays in the same relative electrical gradient.

Are you saying this applies only to masses of matter that are foreign to our solar system?

[Neuro]

I agree with the "'Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon' seems more implausible". You are right on with that statement.

If chunks of the earth flew off, I'd hazzard to guess they would end up looking more like an asteriod belt than a moon.

-----

My main problem with this article is that it is all over the place. It starts with one assumption, then builds upon that assumption to make further assumptions, not proving or offering citations and references for any of it. The author could have written a paper on just one of the concepts in the paper, and concentrated on it, e.g. the concept of life emerging from the seas during the Devonian only because there was no even land present prior to this time. That concept is worthy of a thesis on its own but the author just poses it as fact and moves on, presuming that he has proven it.

There are 20+ little factiods sprinkled throuought the article with no citation of an orignal source for verification. The author says, "I published this analysis along with an in-depth rigorous mathematical proof in 1993. I sent copies of the publication to scientists around the world, including all of the scientists at the USGS. It seems the analysis was then too far outside their accepted paradigm. It was completely ignored. But that was their problem, not mine."

If the author's analysis was written in a style similar to this article; the scientists at the USGS and 'around the world' probably ignored it because it was written like a high school paper. Honestly, most papers I wrote in high school would have received an F for this quality of work. Lack of references is shoddy.

The article has some interesting concepts in it, but they are more in the realm of beer-drinking discussions and not serious science.
Seems like you have more of a problem with the form of the article than the actual content? I agree that it would have been better with some references. However you state that there are about 20 factoids in the article that should have been referenced... Is it anyone in particular that you feel the author has grossly misrepresented/invented... Most of them are pretty basic:
1) No evidence of landliving animals Pre-Devonian
2) Reptiles and Angiosperm plants are better suited in climates with small seasonal variation
3) Gigantic reptiles, insects and plants appear to be better suited physiologically for a low gravity environment.
4) Seabed is not older than 65 million years.
5) Faster rotating planets have an elliptic shape.
6) Planets as they cool down shrink in volume
7) Shrinking planets rotate faster

Which of these factoids and the rest do you disagree with? Certainly he could have divided the paper in fragments, properly referenced it, and gotten it published. But what about the big picture?

Your type of critique is a very typical approach from established scientists, you critique the form without mentioning the content, and status quo is maintained. The idea is that he needs 20 years of education and research/publishing (aka brainwashing) before he is considered an equal. After that journey he is almost guaranteed not to think out of the box...

Most of it is theories that are logically underpinned by simple Newtonian physics

[Down1]

http://listverse.com/2011/02/22/top-10-dinosaurs-that-arent-what-they-were/

Interesting link.
Scrolling down to Parasaurolophus, they had a link to the sounds he made.
Sound familiar ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-tRFuMdQkA

[Awoke]

Your type of critique is a very typical approach from established scientists, you critique the form without mentioning the content, and status quo is maintained. The idea is that he needs 20 years of education and research/publishing (aka brainwashing) before he is considered an equal. After that journey he is almost guaranteed not to think out of the box...

Well, sources are critical. If he told you the earth was flat, you wouldn't buy it.
I'm not saying he's wrong or right, because I haven't seen the video, but I can relate to Grog's concern because I am a stickler for sources.


Most of it is theories that are logically underpinned by simple Newtonian physics

IMO, most of historical science is just that anyways. Theories.

[gunDriller]

Humans did... Here is an early recording of an example...
Once they figured it out... dinner was served...

all they had to do was feed Dino some chocolate.

[Olmstein]

http://humormedication.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/wp_humor_gary_larson_dino.jpg

[DMac]

Interesting link.
Scrolling down to Parasaurolophus, they had a link to the sounds he made.
Sound familiar ?

@ 16 seconds - sounds like a horn of Mordor to me. And one does not simply walk into Mordor even if you're a parasaurolophus.

[Bigjon]

Yeah, I was going to say to your original post that I never asserted that God wanted to create a static universe. Things are always changing.

I have some questions for you BigJon. I'm not on the attack, please remember that I can't watch any videos, and if there are any pictures posted, I am not seeing them either.


What evidence?


How can you say that with authority?


Now that is super-interesting. I hadn't heard about that. Pretty amazing actually, regarding the mammoths. I have to assume the "venus event" is detailed in the video?



Are you saying this applies only to masses of matter that are foreign to our solar system?

You will have to read Velikovsky's and McCanney's books to get the evidence as I don't feel like typing that much info.
One theory says plate tectonics causes mountains. The plates do grind against each other causing earthquakes, but quakes aftermath is a big hole in the ground, not a mountain.
The woolly mammoths are evidence, mountains with sea shells found at their very peaks are evidence. In order to pile up earth to a hight of 5 to 12 thousand feet you need a lot more energy than plate tectonics accounts for. A close encounter with a planetary sized object is what causes mountain building.

I don't know of any video that explains this.

No all matter in the solar system moves through a sea (field) of electrical charge. The field emanates from the sun so there is a gradient from the sun to the outer reaches of the solar system. The more circular the orbit the less the charge effects a planetary object, because it is moving in the same gradient or same charge field. Things that move at a high gradient, which means something moving towards the sun or away from the sun cause a discharge by moving through fields of higher electrical potential. That discharge shows up as a display of the comets tail.

[Neuro]

Well, sources are critical. If he told you the earth was flat, you wouldn't buy it.
I'm not saying he's wrong or right, because I haven't seen the video, but I can relate to Grog's concern because I am a stickler for sources.

Well if he claimed that the earth was round I wouldn't ask for sources. Most of the factoids he is referring to are commonly accepted scientific facts, or common sense (a plant or an animal can grow larger in a low gravity environment). He has outlined a theory outside of the commonly accepted theories of super volcanoes and/or asteroid impact, his theory is underbuilt with facts surrounding them, and he published it in a popular format. Certainly one can disagree with him not supporting those facts with a reference, but just because his article doesn't fulfill the requirements of a scientific journal publication in this field, doesn't negate the theory...

Once again there are no physical laws that are violated in this theory. Perhaps there are some facts that contradict the theory, well let's see those then! The facts supporting his theory could have been referenced, if they are false, it is easy enough to prove it by presenting an article supporting the opposite. But objecting to the articles theory due to it not having references to some of the things it claims is bullshit.

[Awoke]

Hey guys, like I said, I can't see the video, so I am not saying he is wrong or right.

I just have a hard time imagining that a passing planet would have the power to create mountains etc, without making contact. Tectonic plate shifting makes sense to me, but I am not a scholar or even studious in this area.

But what would happen if you took two pieces of Chocolate pudding pie and pushed them into each other? I think the equivalent of "mountains" would form where the opposing pressures were applied, in relation to the normally-flat surface of the pudding pie. Just sayin. I don't research this area though.

[Neuro]

Isn't most high mountains volcanoes, dead or alive?

[Horn]

KT - The Tail of Venus entry?

Exponential increase in carbon dating the deeper you go, shit sinks in...

This all validates my conclusion of Argentinians originating from the moon & the Ionic holes they travel back & forth thru.:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtFTZWsCfo

[Awoke]

Isn't most high mountains volcanoes, dead or alive?

I don't personally think so.

[Bigjon]

Isn't most high mountains volcanoes, dead or alive?

A lot of mountains are the result of volcanoes, but not all mountains are from volcanoes. You won't find any sea shells on top of a volcanic mountain, but there are mountains where there are sea shells on top.

[mamboni]

KT - The Tail of Venus entry?

Exponential increase in carbon dating the deeper you go, shit sinks in...

This all validates my conclusion of Argentinians originating from the moon & the Ionic holes they travel back & forth thru.:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtFTZWsCfo

What about Cubans?;D

[Horn]

What about Cubans?;D

Wannabe Argentinians, evidence in their attempted mimicking with the Bermuda triangle.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewMMVPDX2NQ

[Neuro]

A lot of mountains are the result of volcanoes, but not all mountains are from volcanoes. You won't find any sea shells on top of a volcanic mountain, but there are mountains where there are sea shells on top.
Yes, I just checked it out, that would give support to the notion that there was a time when earth was completely covered in oceans, as mentioned in the article, apart from the fact there was no landliving fossils pre-Devon period.

[Neuro]

What about Cubans?;D

They came out of Uranus!

[Serpo]

What really killed the dinosaurs...........VACCINES..................

[7th trump]

Well I disagree with your analysis, because as the two bodies approach their relative speeds will increase making a near encounter and a flyby much more likely. The evidence of near encounters with Venus as well as other planetary sized objects is hard to deny when you consider all the evidence. Plate tectonics is a fairy tale when it comes to explaining where mountains come from. Mountains are the result of close encounters with planetary sized objects which cause the upper mantle to shift on Earth's core. Before the Venus event the Earth's north pole was a region just north of the great lakes. One piece of evidence is that woolly mammoths found frozen in place in the far north of Siberia, had undigested semi-tropical plants in their throats and stomachs, indicating that they were transported some 3000 miles north in a matter of minutes.

As far as Venus settling into a near circular orbit, McCanney provides the explanation that the electrical nature of the solar system creates these circular orbits. The sun puts out a relatively steady stream of positive current which creates an electrical gradient from strong near the sun to weak at a distance beyond the orbit of Pluto. Any planetary object that enters the solar system at a high gradient takes on an increasing charge that discharges its local environment much as a bug in a bug zapper. This charged object creates an incoming electric current that sucks in all the surrounding space debris, causing the object to grow in size. The changing size and electrical current serve to slow the object as it approaches the Sun, which allows the solar system to capture a new planetary body. The orbit becomes more stable as it approaches a more circular orbit, because it stays in the same relative electrical gradient.
Bigjon,
The earth was a tropical paradise because the firmement was in place. Earth didnt have oceans like today. The firmament is the ocean waters up in the sky encircling the earth. It held the heat in and thats why mammouths were found way up there with butter cups in their mouths.
The earth was watered by a heavy dew by the firmament......not rain.
Everyone thought Noah was a quack becuase back then rain was never heard of....that flood of Noah's time was God removing the firmament.

It was God who destroyed the dinosaurs when He, simply put, destroyed Earth as it was at the time of lucifers revolt to what it is today.........................they are coming back with all the other extinct animals. But this time there will be no carnivores of any kind. The lion will graze with the sheep in the pastuer.

Heck dino's are even mentioned in the Bible.

[Neuro]

Yes I remember the story of the wolly mammoths with buttercups in their mouths. Buttercups is also an arctic plant, so they were probably not moved 3000 miles in an instant... Besides a woolly mammoth would probably not be comfortable in a subtropical climate!

[Serpo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KcUXmIUXDY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_R5w_QHpbU&feature=related



Who says they are all dead............;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KcUXmIUXDY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_R5w_QHpbU&feature=related

[Neuro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KcUXmIUXDY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_R5w_QHpbU&feature=related


Who says they are all dead............;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KcUXmIUXDY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_R5w_QHpbU&feature=related
Another hoax with bignose!

[Horn]

They came out of Uranus!

This is blatant speculation...!

You can see by the attached that they've been gaining re-entry to Earth thru the Southern Hemisphere...

http://maragrace.spintheweb.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/a10fig05.jpg


The bulk of the Earth’s magnetic field is generated not in the inner-core but in the molten metal of the outer-core. This acts as a massive electromagnetic dynamo powered by the Earth’s rotation and the long-term cooling of the planet.
But although the basic principle is understood, the details of how the molten metal moves are a mystery. As Earth rotates and loses heat from the centre, complex patterns of flow are created within this vast ocean.

“You might think of the core like the atmosphere of the Earth, being a very restless place with storms and fronts and bad weather,” says geophysicist Professor Dan Lathrop from the University of Maryland. He has built himself a massive model of the core to help explain something strange about the field – it is never fixed but constantly fluctuating.
http://maragrace.spintheweb.net/category/hollow-earth-2/

[ximmy]

No-no, it was battles with the cavemen...

http://www.sumoflam.biz/Camp31b/flintstone.jpg

http://bradfordschmidt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Flintstones-Montage.jpg

[osoab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSUi8_WzSc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSUi8_WzSc

[Bigjon]

Yes I remember the story of the wolly mammoths with buttercups in their mouths. Buttercups is also an arctic plant, so they were probably not moved 3000 miles in an instant... Besides a woolly mammoth would probably not be comfortable in a subtropical climate!

I don't know about buttercups only what McCanney says and he says subtropical plants. The original source for the info is Velikovsky (http://www.velikovsky.info/Main_Page).


Toxicity

All Ranunculus species are poisonous when eaten fresh by cattle, horses, and other livestock, but their acrid taste and the blistering of the mouth caused by their poison means they are usually left uneaten. Poisoning can occur where buttercups are abundant in overgrazed fields where little other edible plant growth is left, and the animals eat them out of desperation. Symptoms include bloody diarrhea, excessive salivation, colic, and severe blistering of the mucous membranes and gastrointestinal tract. When Ranunculus plants are handled, naturally occurring ranunculin is broken down to form protoanemonin, which is known to cause contact dermatitis in humans and care should therefore be exercised in extensive handling of the plants.[3] The toxins are degraded by drying, so hay containing dried buttercups is safe.

I doubt it was buttercups

[Bigjon]

Velikovsky proposes:[4] (http://www.velikovsky.info/Worlds_in_Collision)

"I have endeavoured to show that two series of cosmic catastrophes took place in historical times, thirty-four and twenty-six centuries ago, and thus only a short time ago not peace but war reigned in the solar system."

"We maintain also that one planet -- Venus -- was formerly a comet...
"... that it joined the family of planets within the memory of mankind"

"We conjectured that the comet Venus originated in the planet Jupiter"

"From the fact that Venus was once a comet we learned that comets are not nearly immaterial bodies"

"We claim that the earth's orbit changed more than once and with it the length of the year;"

"... that the geographical position of the terrestrial axis and its astronomical direction changed repeatedly"

"... the polar regions shifted, the polar ice became displaced into moderate latitudes, and other regions moved into the polar circles."

"... electrical discharges took place between Venus, Mars, and the Earth when, in very close contacts, their atmospheres touched each other;"

"... that the magnetic poles of the earth became reversed only a few thousand years ago"

"... and that with the change in the moon's orbit, the length of the month changed too, and repeatedly so"

"In the period of seven hundred years between the middle of the second millennium before the present era and the eighth century the year consisted of 360 days and the month of almost exactly thirty days, but earlier the day, month, and year were of different lengths."

"We offered an explanation of the fact that the nocturnal side of Venus emits as much heat as the sunlit side"

"... we explained the origin of the canals of Mars and the craters and seas of lava on the moon as brought about in stress and near collisions.

"... excessive evaporation of water from the surface of the oceans and seas, a phenomenon that was postulated to explain the excessive precipitation and formation of ice covers, was caused by extraterrestrial agents."

"We recognized that the religions of the peoples of the world have a common astral origin."

"We learned why there are common ideas in the folklore of peoples separated by oceans"

"The accounts given in this book about planets changing their orbits and the velocities of their rotation, about a comet that became a planet, about interplanetary contacts and discharges, indicate a need for a new approach to celestial mechanics."

"The theory of cosmic catastrophism can, if required to do so, conform with the celestial mechanics of Newton."


The book proposed that around the 15th century BCE, a comet or comet-like object (now called the planet Venus), having originally been ejected from Jupiter, passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes which were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Fifty-two years later, it passed close by again, stopping the Earth's rotation for a while and causing more catastrophes. Then, in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Mars (itself displaced by Venus) made close approaches to the Earth; this incident caused a new round of disturbances and disasters. After that, the current "celestial order" was established. The courses of the planets stabilized over the centuries and Venus gradually became a "normal" planet.

These events lead to several key statements:

Venus must be still very hot as young planets radiate heat.[5]

Venus must be rich in petroleum gases, and hydrocarbons.[6]

Venus has an abnormal orbit in consequence of the unusual disasters that happened.

Velikovsky suggested some additional ideas that he said derived from these claims, including:

Jupiter emits radio noises.[7]

The magnetosphere of Earth reaches at least up to the moon.

The sun has an electric potential of approximately 1019 volts.

The rotation of earth can be affected by electromagnetic fields.

Velikovsky arrived at these proposals using a methodology which would today be called comparative mythology - he looked for concordances in myths and written history of unconnected cultures across the world, in particular

following a rather literal reading of their accounts of the exploits of planetary deities. In this book, he argues on the basis of ancient cosmological myths from places as disparate as India and China, Greece and Rome, Assyria and Sumer. For example, ancient Greek mythology asserts that the goddess Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. Velikovsky identifies Zeus (whose Roman counterpart was the god Jupiter) with the planet Jupiter. Velikovsky identifies Athena with the planet Venus, although the Greek counterpart of the Roman Venus was Aphrodite and not Athena. This myth, along with others from ancient Egypt, Israel, Mexico, etc. are used to support the claim that "Venus was expelled as a comet and then changed to a planet after contact with a number of members of our solar system" (Velikovsky 1972:182).

[Bigjon]

Former Environment of Frozen Mammoths (http://www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A312-Frozen_Mammoths.txt). There is a common
misconception that the mammoth lived in areas of extreme cold.
This widespread belief comes primarily from popular drawings
showing mammoths living comfortably in snowy, Arctic regions. The
artists, in turn, were influenced by earlier opinions based on the
mammoth's hairy coat, thick skin, and a 3.5 inch layer of fat
under the skin. However, animals with these characteristics do not
necessarily live in cold climates. Let's examine these
characteristics more closely:

Hair. The mammoth's hairy coat no more implies an Arctic
adaptation than a woolly coat does for a sheep. The mammoth lacked
erector muscles that fluff-up an animal's fur and creates
insulating air pockets. Neuville, who conducted the most detailed
study of the skin and hair of the mammoth, wrote: "It appears to
me impossible to find, in the anatomical examination of the skin
and [hair], any argument in favor of adaptation to the cold."30
The long hair on a mammoth's legs hung to its toes.31 Had it
walked in snow, snow and ice would have caked on its hairy
"ankles." Each step into and out of snow would have pulled or worn
away the "ankle" hair. All hoofed animals living in the Arctic,
including the musk ox, have fur, not hair, on their legs.32 Fur,
especially oily fur, holds a thick layer of stagnant air (an
excellent insulator) between the snow and skin. With the mammoth's
greaseless hair, much more snow would touch the skin, melt, and
increase the heat transfer 10 - 100 fold. Later refreezing would
seriously harm the animal.

Skin. The skin of the mammoth and elephant are very similar in
thickness and structure.33 Both lack oil glands, making them
vulnerable to cold, damp climates. Today, it appears that all
Arctic mammals have both oil glands and erector musclesãequipment
absent in the mammoths.34

Fat. The amount of fat under the skin says little about an
animal's habitat. Some animals living in temperate zones, such as
the rhinoceros, have thick layers of fat, while many Arctic
animals, such as reindeer and caribou, have little fat. Thick
layers of fat under the skin simply show that food was plentiful.
Abundant food also suggests a temperate climate.

Elephants. The elephantãa close approximation to the mammoth35ãis
a tropical, not an Arctic animal. It requires "a climate that
ranges from warm to very hot," and "it gets a stomachache if the
temperature drops close to freezing."36 Newborn elephants are
susceptible to pneumonia and must be kept warm and dry at all
times.37 Hannibal, who crossed the Alps with 37 elephants, lost
all but one due to cold weather.38

Temperature. The average January temperature in northeastern
Siberia is about -28ƒF (60ƒF below the freezing point)! During the
ice age, it was colder. The long, slender trunk of the mammoth was
particularly vulnerable to cold weather. A six-foot-long nose
could not survive even one cold night, let alone an
eight-month-long Siberian winter. For the more slender trunk of a
young mammoth, the heat loss would be even more harmful. Elephants
usually die if their trunk is seriously injured.39

[Bigjon]

McCanney talks about phony tier 2 fairy tale science.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_March_01_2012.mp3




Standard science says there are Billions of nomad planets
Where life comes from jumped on a nomad planet touted by standard science
Planet x in general

Ancient mayans are called the Olmecs gigantic rocks carved in a round face sprinkled around the jungle with no source for the rocks

Mayan calendar are really many different calenders
360 days associate with venus
Their calendar can’t be compared to our calendar

Rock calendar in Zimbabwe formed in a circle that tracks venus
Velikovski
Mars a blue planet a water planet
Aztec calendar is a series of wheels an elaborate counting device 360 days

Mayan cities are 13 degrees off of north evidence that our poles have shifted
Planet x will look like a big raging comet

Bankers fascist control same families same methods over and over

Main topic
Pluto is no longer a planet because they found 40 pluto sized objects in orbit so either we have 40 new planets or Pluto has to go
Microlensing discovers new planets… bogus new method

According to Standard Science the planets coalesce out of dusty debris. Using that model the planets should rotate clockwise, but instead in reality they rotate counterclockwise so fairy tale science has all planets hit by comets that revers their direction.
Bandaid science.

Peer reviewed fairy tale science.
Unproven general theory of relativity.

Einstein didn’t believe in general theory of relativity

[Horn]

McCanney talks about Planet capture and phony tier 2 fairy tale science.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_March_01_2012.mp3

I'll check that out later, does he touch on comet turning planetary geodes at all?

Or turning their cores inside out in expansion process...

[Bigjon]

I'll check that out later, does he touch on comet turning planetary geodes at all?

Or turning their cores inside out in expansion process...

He only alludes to planet capture, he mainly talks about Mayan calenders Mayan building structure and orientation.
Some new theory about planet sized bodies forming in deep interstellar space and picking up basic life forms only to collide and spray these life infested particles around the universe seeding life throughout the universe. Beyond bizarre theory.

[vacuum]

Fantastic paper Neuro. I just read it. I can't believe this was written in 2005, previously written in the early 90s, and I'm just now seeing it.

I think there is pretty overwhelming proof, such as the total angular momentum of the earth/moon system creates a near zero-g rotation speed of earth and the inverse bode spacing of planets and moons. In fact the whole thing is pretty solid.

Another reason I'm so excited about this is because, as I thought, it perfectly correlates to another source I've read about. That source is more of an esoteric/spiritual one that claims that planets give birth to moons. You can also get a small hint of this in my "food for the moon" thread - the earth is nourishing the moon as well. It also claims that the earth will become a sun after the moon becomes a planet.

Don't take the above to mean this is superstitious. The article stands on its own....and I don't see much to debate here. It would be nice to have the calculations though.

Again, thanks for posting this. (how did you come across it?)

[vacuum]

Several theories in the document but where are the citations? No references at all? The earlier part of the work seemed interesting but dove into whack in the last few pages.

I can entertain the thought of bulging around the earth's center, and possibly the tearing off of part of this bulge as the cataclysmic event that destroyed the dinosaurs. The K-T as he says.

The making the moon and the dark side of the moon being the old surface of the earth... Not buying it.

When the Chineese come back with a brontosarus thigh bone from their moon visit, I'll change my tune.
The way you have to read this type of thing is with critical thinking based on what you personally know. If you understand biology but not physics, for example, you can analyze what he says in that area and in the other area you just file it away as "unverifiable evidence".

If someone is knowledgeable about what everything he's writing, they could come to a different conclusion. Neither conclusion is wrong, even though they are different.

The most important thing to be able to do is recognize what you don't know and don't pass judgement on it. Just use what you do know to try and figure out what is correct, with a likelihood of being right, and as you gain new information you can adjust what you think is the most likely scenario.

[vacuum]

As much as some people think it's implausible that everything was created by God the creator, I have to say that the whole "Chunks of the earth flew into orbit and coalesced into the near-perfectly spherical satellite known as the moon" seems much more implausible.
But of course I'm biased, because I believe in the creator.
I don't see it as mutually exclusive.

Just think of planets like people. Did God create you? Not directly. Your parents did. Did God create your parents? Nope, not the way you're looking at it. Something in the distant past simply started a chain of creation that lead to you existing right now. (Talking about physical manifestation here. The spirit of a person might be different. An analog for that could be life on earth)

In a similar manner, if there is a long chain of creation which lead to the creation of planets, how is that different than saying "God created me and he created this Earth"?

[Awoke]

IMO all things are God's creation.

However living creatures are given the opportunity to multiply. I can't say the same thing for planets.

I'm not arguing anything, just stating my opinion. I can't see any videos ar anything, so I am just having converstaion based on posts here.

[Horn]

Fantastic paper Neuro.

When you take the basic balance of our solar system into account the inner planets are too numerous (is what I hear) that sounds about right.

Its the tearing of the moon away from the Earth that seems too fall off the flat end of the Earth for me.

Feels geo-gravity over slanted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgICTkOKavw&feature=player_embedded

[Bigjon]

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

The case against pangea


First… it’s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half… and, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom.

To begin with basic stuff.
All science knows…
The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?

Secondly,
Sitting on or “in” and “as part of” the oceanic crust is the second higher upper crust or the Continental Crust rising for the most part out of the water. It is made mostly of granitic rock, which is 2.5 times the weight of water.

Some edge area of the Continental Crust or Plate dips into and under the sea level of the ocean. This area is what we call the Continental Shelf. So as you go out into the ocean and the water gets gradually deeper … that is the Continental Shelf. At a given distance out into the ocean the ocean floor suddenly drops off and goes down like a plummet… 2 ½ to 4 miles to the deep ocean floor, where we find the second lower crust, the Oceanic Crust made mostly of basalts which are 3.0 – 3.3 times the weight of water. So to make it visually clear, if you took the water away what you would see as you go out into the ocean a distance is, the Continental Shelf would suddenly drop away and down like a ridge in Arizona., except it would go straight down for two to three miles, as if it was suddenly broken off. The other side of that broken off ridge is across the ocean thousands of miles in Europe, or Africa and west to Australia and Asia.

How did the two sides of this higher crust spread apart?

Rifts or eruptive cracks in the ocean floor provide new material in the form of molten magmic rock that rises up at a rift area and the oceanic plate spreads apart and the two sides move away from each other smoothly and regularly, and so the continents welded within the oceanic plates also move apart as the ocean bottom spreads…. Now if this happens … and it does, all over the world, logically speaking, this Earth must grow.

We … I … argue that, that this outer crust originally covered the whole of a smaller Earth and the Earth sphere grew. The outer crust, therefore, had to crack and spread to accommodate a growing Earth…which…it apparently did.

We further argue that if you were to shrink the sphere of Earth … by letting the oceanic plate re-enter the rifts they erupted from, over time … the continental crust would easily and completely fit back together, and this solution satisfies all questions of tectonics, science, geology, paleontology, theoretical and practical physics, cosmology, and subatomic physics. Pretty simple actually.

Against this is the current Pangea theory which insists … that the continents float willy, nilly about the Earth, spinning, sliding, bumping, and crashing like bumper cars in a carnival. (That’s a common description … which some geologists are currently backing away from… in small numbers.) The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained, why this assembly of material mysteriously ended at exactly this time, and didn’t continue to provide more material is a brutally illogical contradiction. Sometime in the previous 9 billion years, this stuff collected. Yet, for the last 4.5 billion years no new stuff collected, according to our 150 year old theory. How can that be? There is no possible explanation for this contradiction. It’s almost silly. It’s certainly naïve, but still it is one hundred and fifty years old.

We are told this material is ‘star stuff’, from novas or super novas. If this wasn’t presented seriously, it would be funny. Why?

We are told meteorites, comets and asteroids are left over material from this time, only less is going around now. Less … that the shoe-maker levy planets killer that struck Jupiter. Twenty one of them? Billion years ago they were bigger. But meteorites aren’t loosely assembled. They’re solid. Some are solid unrustable iron! This from a super-nova? Gigantic meteorites … floating around, waiting for gravity to come along?

Let’s clear some thing up. The only kind of meteorites that we’ve identified to be 4.5 billion years old are colondrite meteorites. Condrite meteorites are assembled from mineral dust and pencil tip tiny meteorites called chondrules. More importantly, chondrite meteorites cannot assemble, accrete on a gravitational body … like a planet or a sun! So where did they come from? Where did all the other meteorites come from?

Contradiction upon contradiction, upon contradiction. It’s a wrong theory. It’s an old outworn theory, and it contradicts itself.

Geologists then say, that once assembled into planets, moons, and suns…this activity gave us a molten (from all the friction of assembly) differentiated Earth. Differentiated … like in a caldron…melted in that, the lightest material rose to the surface … which was presumably granitic rock … then down to basalts … then heavier silicates at the bottom, or core, you have iron and the heavier elements.

Let us say we accepted this whole wrong scenario
… The Earth finished, cools in time … The Earth must then be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock, and under that we find basalts.

Comparing that to today’s world we find an Earth that merely has pieces of this granitic crust. We went from an Earth completely covered with a relatively thick outer crust of granitic rock to a few, seven, scattered pieces that we call continents…. Where is the rest of the crust?

The only time geologists admit to us that massive crust is gone is when they come up with theories like the one where a rogue planet comes barreling through space and grazes Earth. Rips off a massive chunk … or “peels off the crust” … that’s one of my favorites, and deposits it in orbit to be our moon. Unlike all the other moons in our solar system, which were made by what? Other rogue planets? Ming the Merciless? …Rogue planets? This is fantasy.

Added together these continental upper plate areas cover only between one third to one quarter of the Earth. Where is the rest of the outer crust? Three quarters of it seems to be missing. It has to be somewhere, This much stuff can’t disappear. If we got it back it would give us four times the continental surface and mass than we have now!

I think the continental crust … is the whole crust of a smaller Earth. In fact, it all does fit together on a smaller Earth.

Granitic rock cannot subduct as geologists insist the oceanic plate does, because it’s too light! This is fact!

This alone disproves the pangea theory! Granitic rock cannot subduct. Yet, three quarters, twenty one continents worth, is gone! Simply gone. No explanation!

I say this: Earth was progressively smaller as we go back in time over 4 – 5 billion years it grew from a small planetesimal to a planet the size of Mars. The increasing speed of growth increased exponentially. The heat under the crust from this growth increased as it grew and the thin thick crust cracked more profoundly, and 2 – 4 miles deep, and over the final 200 million years rifted the ocean to reveal new deeper basalt plate until we have the Earth we see today.


An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.


Pangeaists…insist…against all reasonable symmetries, that all the continents moved to one side of Earth about 600 million years ago, (pick your own time, (it’s all a “guessing game”) they gathered together on one side of the Earth, and for some unexplained reason stayed on that side for 400 million to 600 million years. Sound incredible?

Then in an desperate attempt to explain the clear fact that all the continents fit perfectly together geologists say,… that in some magical other unnamed time, and for some unnamed reason, all the continents, once-upon-a-previous-fictional-made-up-time, gathered and connected in the Pacific, again, into one giant island that they named Rodinia. The continents gathered to form Rodinia, in the Pacific, then broke apart and zipped around the planet to gather, and then form Pangea in the Atlantic! You can see why timing is everything in this. How could the two giant islands exist at the same time? What intellectual terror prevents science from the obvious conclusion that Rodinia and Pangea happened at the same time on a smaller Earth, I cannot explain. This, in the face of facts that the ocean floor in all oceans of the world is the same progressive age and none of it, none, is older than 180 million years old. Apparently it’s easier to believe that continents travel around the planet than it is to consider that the Earth grew.

Back to Pangea then: For no explainable reason, this Pangea island broke in half, and one half rode to and over the South Pole, and the other half rode to and over the North Pole, over a period of about 60 million years. Once there inexplicably they broke up again, and spread around the Earth and the poles, and the pieces are currently riding toward each other, north to south to eventually crash back together in the middle. No…not east to west. Simply north to south.

So it’s Rodinia, Pangea, Godswana, and Laurasia. Then Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, Europe and Antarctica. And now back to crash together. I say this is ludicrous and scientifically impossible.

We (I) say this: These conclusions defy reason and common sense. Scientifically they have no basis in fact, only theory that gets stronger every year! Granitic rock and basalt is, on average, three times heavier than water. Let’s suppose Pangea is on one side of the Earth as the Pangeaists say. Let’s add that if today we can say the land masses rise on average, half mile above sea level, that equals a mile and a half of water, then the pangea side of Earth is four and one half times heavier than the water side!

This shift results in a natural shift of the center of gravity to the Pangea side. Not much for the whole Earth, but quite enough to sink most of Pangea into the sea. It’s also enough to raise the middle of the Pacific out into the air.

In addition, at this configuration, the continents could not move. Pangea is in a hole … as it were … gravity wise. Everything else is up hill!

This is not quantum physics here, it’s simple. You learn this kind of math in grade school. This is undeniable and clear. Pangea could not have existed as described.

3. Pangeaists insist that the concept of subduction disproves a growing Earth because … they say, the oceanic plate subducts, or dives under the continental plate,… on a sort of conveyor belt that carries crust down and under, to somehow join the plastic material below. At a moment of discovery in 1964, Kiyoo Wadati and Hugo Benioff discovered a chunk of Oceanic Plate angling downward just east of the island of Tonga in the South Pacific trench areas. With some relief they and others announced that this “subduction” principle alone explained the apparent disappearance of excess crustal material of Earth. This view was enhanced and supported by the appearance and extent of the under sea trenches around… what became known as the “Ring of Fire.” A volcanic arch of island and trench areas around the western pacific, but far from the continental plate.

The world of science, and specifically geology, breathed a collective sigh of relief that the growing Earth theory proposed by the brilliant geologist, Professor Samuel Warren Carey, of Australia, was not true and no longer would science have to deal with the possibility of a growing Earth … and its ramifications, and their … now 150 year old theory of a constant size Earth was secure, along with the non-sensical theory that Earth and the solar system coalesced 4.5 billion years ago out of what they call “star stuff.” (Sigh)

Our secondary goal here is to rid ourselves of this old unrealistic and simplistic and wrong theory of solar system assembly completely and utterly. A theory that insults intelligence and the facts of “real science,” and was born of ignorance and desperation, long ago by intelligent, yet time ignorant men. 150 years is a very long time. And this theory has served its purpose … time to fix it.

So what, in fact, is subduction, and what is it not?

First: Continents do not subduct under other continents as originally proposed! Geology has come to slowly agree with this.

We know this for many reasons, the most important being that the granitic rock of the continents cannot subduct, because it is too light to do so.

Continents sit on and in oceanic plates like cups welded to growing, spreading plates.

A continent is not capable of independent movement or growing, their function is done. They may crack apart if rifting dictates, but only the lower oceanic plates gain new edges … and grow outward.

Secondly… subduction and tectonic movement was originally proposed to be fueled by the convection (roiling and boiling) of an ocean of molten rock under the crust of the Earth, like a pot of boiling water on a stove.

It is now known, and has been discovered by seismic scanning, that only 4% of the asthenosphere (under the crust) is molten and most of that, if not all, is located under the rifts. Some is under volcanic areas, to be sure, but they are the exception that proves the rule.

The concept of convection has been altered into near disuse because of recent discovery.

Because convection requires the heat to be under the bottom of the pot… little survives of the stubborn convection concept. Super heated gases rise to the highest areas under the crust and collect there.

This creates a problem! If new material erupts from the rifts to the new sea floor… where does this new material come from? What space inside the Earth is being emptied out to provide this new stuff? There’s no convection conveyor belt to bring new material.

Third: And quite telling… there is no evidence even that oceanic plate subducts under the actual continental plates at all!! Is this a surprise to you? None has been seen. In fact, the concept is nearly impossible to actually imagine based on facts. The continents, themselves, are plus or minus 30 to 40 miles thick! The oceanic plates are only 4 to 5 miles thick. The continents are not only solid and 35 miles thick, they become part of the increasingly dense asthenosphere beneath making it solid into solid. In other words, a total barrier to subducting plates. Not exactly what you have been led to believe is it?

Some may think that what I’m saying contradicts the observed truth itself, that the Ring of Fire, and the trenches you have heard about are up against the continents. They are not! They are, in fact, on average, hundreds of miles from continents, (see for yourself! Hardly like the drawings they show in books is it?) Subduction zones and trenches generally line the edges of newly created volcanic islands. In fact, this is exactly what we see … trenches pushing down along side volcanic islands that are pushing upwards! The continents play no part in this process. The continents are too thick and old to enter!

Let us consider… away from the continents we find volcanic island chains pushing upward out of the oceans, and right next to these volcanic islands… we find trenches, which indicate subduction or pushing down. Sort of makes sense, doesn’t it?

Even geologists say these two phenomenon’s are directly related. Sure they are!!!

Isn’t this folding… under pressure?

If we say the Earth is growing and we point to uneven growth from rifting and spreading,… it is reasonable to assume great pressures from this growth are being applied, and not evenly, and regularly, everywhere.

So, along some edges compression and folding are reasonable and logical, especially where there’s little or no rifting. On the upper surface of the continental plates compression results in folding and mountaining. In fact, compared to mountaining subduction and volcanic islands are new and only just beginning.

So, instead of a conveyor belt we have, simply some compression and folding.

Let’s look at the Western Pacific … Here along the west side is the Ring of Fire way out into the ocean. Next is a chain of volcanic islands. These, like Hawaii, are pushed up high as if compressed and folded, because the ocean bottom pushes against them. As proof we have these trenches, evidence on new folding downward.

Here is a vast expanse on our moon, we call it Valles Ibrium. This, like the western pacific, is receiving outward pressure and holding pressure from nearby spreads. Can you see how the crater’s edges are dealing with the pressure by collapsing and folding?

This is similar to the Ring of Fire folding edges.

While you hold that in your mind let’s look at another phenomenon. Geology tells you that mountains are created by continents bumping and crashing into each other. A preposterous idea.

The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old and younger.

The Rockies are under 60 million.

The Andes are under 60 million.

And the massive Himalayas are under 60 million years old. During all the ages of dinosaurs there were literally no mountains. Please let that sink in. They told you different? There is folded land and theories, but no true mountains, after all.

Keeping that thought … carefully now, Pangea stayed whole for 300 million years and then only broke apart … yes … where is the bumping and crashing that made the mountains if it stayed whole??? Serious question here. One island … How did we get mountains with no crashing?

Here is how the mountains are really made and why they are so young.

The Earth is growing

If the skin of the growing Earth is stretched as the Earth grows a hair breadth per year, the cool dry crust will stretch … crack and repair, and in time gently slide apart un-dramatically. Cracks will appear and slide apart, and water will settle in these shallow spread areas. But three things happen.
One, with added growth the heat of this growth increases under the crust.
Two, the crust thickens.
Three, the growth of the Earth increases exponentially.

Let me remind you that a growing sphere changes it’s geometry. It’s surface re-curves to a flatter surface.

If that surface stretches like a balloon to the bigger size, this re-curving is made up by stretching.

But, if any section holds its shape and the edges crack and rift down to a deeper level…a plastic lower level that can continue to stretch, then the upper piece is broken free … sitting on the surface … like a continent, now broken free, it no longer stretches, to flatten out.

That separate surface continental plate sits un-stretched on a sphere that is continuing to get bigger and to re-curve flatter.

The curvature of that continent is no longer the same as the sphere … so it must somehow flatten out. Re-curve.

But remember, as crust it has now thickened to 20 -30 miles thick. 200 million years ago it was only 4 – 5 miles thick, now it’s 20 miles thick.

As it re-curves the edges crack and split (into bays and inlets and under sea “V’s” forms and the upper surface of the main body wrinkles and folds … into mountains.

This is how we get nearly all our mountains.

The Andes are a unique case. South America lies east of the most profound and rapidly growing rift area on Earth. The pressure of this growing rift against South America prevents South America from flattening out easily. This pressure drives a trench along South America’s coast as a barrier to westward movement, so like on the moon. Remember? …The…edge of South America folds more profoundly like waves against a barrier it cannot pass! No other place on Earth is quite like this.

Now let us look at the western pacific.

The western Pacific has no rifting to speak of. Yet rifting is all over the rest of the planet spreading and holding the western pacific in a circular vice.

The world rifts and grows all around the un-growing Pacific creating vice-like pressure. All areas push in multiplying pressure. Now the Earth re-curves. The oceanic plate, in the western pacific, is pushed on around the edges and also down by the re-curve. Down, right?!!.

Volcanic islands rise up…next outward, pushes downward … not near the super thick continents, but outward in the ocean creating a ring of pressure, a ring of fire.

This folding has only happened … like mountaining, in the last 30 – 60 million years.

A phenomenon … yes.

A conveyor belt … nonsense!

We are not floating on a sea of magma. Certain areas are folding up and down, under the pressure of Earth’s growth. That’s all. We have examined descending slabs seismically. There are some slabs, but not the whole ocean floor descending for hundreds of millions of years. In the last 200 million years are there enough slabs to account for 2/3rds of the old ocean from all directions? Of course not! It’s nonsense, we’d see it clear as a bell if it happened. The Antarctic Ocean completely surrounds Antarctica. It’s as big as the Atlantic Ocean, according to how you measure it … and it encircles Antarctica. It has no subduction to eat up its ocean floor … which is only about 60 million years old. No subduction!! How then can it grow? It grows because the Earth grows!

We are told by geology that the southern continents are traveling upward to join the descending northern continents.

For this to be so, the oceanic plates must be subducting in the middle some where. Search with me to find a subducting trench or any sign that the two sides are moving towards each other.

Nope…nothing…but that can’t be true. The whole Pangea concept rests on this theory.

Let’s examine this more closely. The northern and southern continents, that they named Gondwana and Laurasia, pulled and went over the poles and separated 1000 to 2000 miles apart.
Listen carefully, please. The northern continent split in two. The southern continent broke into 4 continents.

It is not possible for North America to join with South America exactly at Panama. T’s a needle in a haystack.

Similarly, Africa could not, could not join Eurasia at exactly the same place that it split away. There is no way to justify this. There are no odds that make this possible.

[Bigjon]

Pangea: The first proof. How South America fits perfectly into Africa. Easy enough to recognize . They said that a child could see it. But here’s the thing.

It’s not true.

If you settle South America to Africa, in the north there is a 25 degree split between the two. They do not fit! If you try to fit downward coasts, there is a 25 degree split at the top.

There is only one way these two continents will fit together properly.

If you make a globe 50% smaller … and re-curve these two continents on to that globe…

They fit perfectly!

In fact geologists will tell you that South America’s tail wrapped under Africa. The story of this fact is recorded in the under sea geology for anyone to see. Both Antarctica and South America have tails that pulled apart from under Africa.

Now watch what happens when we put these on a smaller globe.

Now we’ll go to India.

Geologists tell you in books, and on television, that India was once attached to Africa. That for some reason, and at a mysterious time, India tore off of Africa … it rode up the Indian Ocean, and slowly, inexorably crashed into Asia. It proceeded to push so hard against Eurasia they say that it up the Himalayas … the greatest mountain range on Earth.
This little peninsula … India … crush Eurasia?

Let’s get the rules straight: Continents don’t move. Only the Oceanic Plate that they sit in, moves!

In order for India, the upper plate, to crash into Eurasia… India’s oceanic plate would have to subduct under Eurasia.

But we have established… that oceanic plate cannot subduct under a continental plate… because a continental plate is well over 30 miles thick. This halts the process. It can’t happen!

Let’s imagine there’s no leading plate edge on the Indian northern edge … which … would be impossible. But let’s forget this impossibility. Say we can shove India up against Eurasia, it would then stop or become part of Eurasia, like Europe. Why would it crumple up mountains? Even worse, these mountains were made only 30,40,50 million years ago. When did India “crash” into Eurasia, while the southern continents were a further 2000 miles to the south? That’s where the southern continents were 50 million years ago. Or while 4 continents were at the South Pole did India independently voyage north for 2500 miles? All by itself?

So, let’s say India fused together with Eurasia. How does one peninsula push into a continent and why? Once it stops that peninsula has stopped. It has to overcome inertia in order to do anything. If it’s truly against Eurasia … it would have to back up and crash into Eurasia over and over again to overcome inertia … that’s how physics works.

Speaking of physics … physics say every action has an equal and opposite re-action, well we have established it’s the oceanic plate that moves. The continental India is the body of the thing. Think of it like a Volkswagen Beatle crashing into a truck. No matter how that truck crumples … it’s nothing compared to how crushed the Volkswagen would be.

The same thing is true of India. India would be one vast mountain range … it’s not.

Again, worse…the Eurasian mountains are far too gigantic and extensive to be crumpled by puny India.

Look closer. Examine the north of India. This is an impacting body. Yet, the top of it is extensive flatland. So flat, in fact, that it looks almost stretched out. How can this be an impacting body?

So how do I explain all this with a growing Earth, and how can my conclusion explain all the clues, and far, far better than this? Earth grew.

As earth grew India was a part of both Africa and Asia. The geometry of a smaller Earth makes this very simple. India broke away from Africa … but stayed attached Eurasia. As Africa pulled further away the distance simply increased. That’s it. Explains everything.

The mountains in Asia?

We’ve discussed how mountains are made. The thick continental plates must re-curve to a growing planet. The greatest mountain range on Earth should be … from compression folding … at the center of the biggest continent on Earth. That would be … the Himalayans.

Finally:

It’s important to understand how desperate the scientific and geologic community is to avoid the logical conclusion that the Earth grew.

Since the Earth, 200 million years ago, had no deep oceans, and all the continents were seamlessly together as one land that covered a smaller planet, then any variation of this story that’s not true, will have to be explained, and re-explained as contradictions must, and did, show up one after the other.

That’s exactly what has happened!

Science has had to admit all the continents were together, because of tectonic matching in the Atlantic, and animals and plants matching on either side of the ocean. But it seemed no one asked about how the Pacific could have bee so vast. This was incredibly ignored.

Then the question rose of how Antarctica could have ridden to the South Pole … especially when the other southern continents were wrapped around it with Antarctica in the center.

Then, of course, there was the North Pole.

So geology made up another part of the story in which Pangea not only broke up … but now Pangea broke in half and the two halves rode to and over the poles.

But then how to explain how the continents are more together than apart today.

The new chapter … included continents moving back toward the equator and each other … to one day crash together. Shockingly now … no one objected and pointed out the near unreal contradictions.

Then the worst possible thing happened, tectonic matching in the Pacific showed undeniable coincidences of tectonics .. at one time the Pacific was closed. So back to the drawing board … the continents must have been joined in the Pacific as well. Some explanation was needed fast!

Of course they couldn’t even suggest, in any way, that this new massive island they named Rodinia, was assembled at the same time as Pangea! So … they assigned a time to it that would never be suspected to conflict with Pangea. They said it was formed 11 to 12 hundred million years ago, and it broke up 9, or 8, or 7 hundred million years ago.

Did they have proof of these dates?

Not one tenth of proof. If I said this Rodinia had exactly the same timings as Pangea … there is no proof … what-so-ever that this isn’t true!

How irresponsible … are Rodinia’s dates?

This irresponsible…there is, in fact, no beginning point for either Rodinia or Pangea.

Can we let that sink in? No provable beginning point! When they say these islands formed at such and such time, it’s fabrication based on no proof what-so-ever. It’s a lie!

There is only one proof of age that’s verifiable, and that’s the work that led to the Rainbow Map… And on the Rainbow Map there is no square yard of the deep ocean that is older than one hundred and eighty million years … Atlantic or Pacific. So Rodinia began breaking up 180 million years ago, just as Pangea did. No difference, and there is no evidence of deep ocean anywhere in the world!

[Bigjon]

http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

Q. Relative to your videos, I have one question... As the land goes back together, the ocean seems to disappear. What happened to the water? Weren't the oceans displaced over the land?

A. In making the video I had to ignore the water level completely. And I did. Because if I focused on that. nothing about the upper tectonic plates would make any sense VISUALLY.

Going backward in time, in fact the percentage of the Earth covered with water would remain nearly the same... About two thirds.

This is because when there were no deep seas on the earth, there were, what were called shallow seas covering two-thirds of the land. This process from one to the other was gradual and evolutionary.

Of course this is perfectly logical and scientifically understandable. Since all elements are produced in common amounts at the core of the Earth as are the gases including Oxygen and Hydrogen. If, as the Earth grows, it's field increases, that field will hold the Earth's gases from flying off into space to a greater extent as the Earth grows. Water will increase in amount,but not percentage. A bigger Earth holds more water on it's bigger surface and greater mass.

Incidentally that increase in amount and depth of water , means also that that deeper that water will get, in general, colder at depth... leading to colder winters and ice ages,... as we have now . There was no such thing as ice ages and icy winter or frozen poles in the ages of the dinosaurs.(Nor in fact, to be precise , were there Mountains in the ages of dinosaurs, therefore nor were there rivers fed by frozen ice capped mountains . There was merely runoff, which can be similar but ever-changing in depth.

It is reasonable to assume that dinosaurs migrated hemispherically. until the breaking up of the upper continental plates destroyed their migratory pathways. This contributed to the depletion of dinosaur families until a final extinction 63 million years ago when migratory pathways were totally cut off..

[Horn]

I think its safe to draw another conclusion from this thread,

some Geologists have their head buried so long in the dirt that when it expands so large it forgets to take the Earth with it...

This accounts for Mercury's orbit & the relatively unbalanced scale of our solar system... :)

http://www.kiroastro.com/images/perspective/sun1.jpg

http://gold-silver.us/forum/I%20think%20its%20safe%20to%20draw%20another%20con clusion%20from%20this%20thread,%20%20some%20Geolog ists%20have%20their%20head%20buried%20so%20long%20 in%20the%20dirt%20that%20when%20it%20expands%20so% 20large%20it%20forgets%20to%20take%20the%20Earth%2 0with%20it...%20:%29%20%20This%20accounts%20for%20 Mercury%27s%20orbit%20&%20the%20relatively%20unbalanced%20scale%20of%20ou r%20solar%20system...%20

[ximmy]

Humans do...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IBVPgalgRAk/THANO2OnKZI/AAAAAAAACIE/fxHL4d0lKqA/s1600/mammoth+meat+campaign.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2-JsAemWzuU/TjVyc58Hd4I/AAAAAAAABD4/Thkb1HsMAho/11%2B-%2B1.jpeg

http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/591/048/045/005/mammoth_meat.JPG

[Horn]

McCanney talks about Planet capture and phony tier 2 fairy tale science.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/Jame...ch_01_2012.mp3 (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_March_01_2012.mp3)

Just started this, not sure what all the nonsense is from Nasa on seed planets & man as leading edge is? but to me it smells to me as destruction science and preparation for "alternative alien enemy" and NWO civilization stuff.

[Bigjon]

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_March_08_2012.mp3

This show covers planetary capture in detail.

[gunDriller]

Obama-saurus.

he sold them out to the Rats & the Vultures.

[vacuum]

To prove that, let's do a little math. If the earth spins at 24 hours per day, as it does today, then the
force of gravity at the equator is about the same as the force of gravity at the north and south poles. If the
earth spins faster, in about a 12 hour revolution day, then the force of gravity at the equator is around half
of what it would be at the poles. And if the earth spins around in about 7 hours, then the force of gravity
becomes rather close to zero at the equator, while the force at the poles remains the same.Current equatorial velocity : v_current = 465 m/s
Radius of earth: r = 6.378E6 m
Gravitational acceleration: g = 9.81 m/s2
Centripetal acceleration: a_centripetal = v^2/r

0 g condition:
a_centripetal = g

v^2/r = g
v = sqrt(r*g)
v_prehistoric = 7910 m/s

hours/day = circumference of earth / equatorial velocity

2*pi*r/v_current = 86181 s/day = 23.94 hours/day
2*pi*r/v_prehistoric = 5066 s/day = 1.4 hours/day

So by my calculations a 0 g condition would be 1.4 hours per day rotation, using the earth's current radius. An elongated radius would be a little slower rotation, but I don't know where he's getting 7 hours/day rotation from. Anyone see anything wrong with my calculations?

[vacuum]

With another quick calculation we can find the volume of the missing three quarters of the rocky
continents of earth. Simply take three fourths of the surface area of the earth and multiply that by 37
miles, or the average depth to the hot molten fluid asthenosphere where the separation took place. That
volume of the three fourths of the surface material missing from the earth's rocky layer is exactly equal to
the volume of the moon. And that calculation also shows the two volumes are exactly the same with an
accuracy of about one percent. Amazing.
(510,072,000 (km^2)) * 37 miles * 0.75 = 2.27794564 × 10^10 km^3

Actual moon volume is 2.1958 × 10^10 km^3, so that checks out.

[Horn]

(510,072,000 (km^2)) * 37 miles * 0.75 = 2.27794564 × 10^10 km^3

Actual moon volume is 2.1958 × 10^10 km^3, so that checks out.

Now you're acting like Timothy Giethner, making your numbers work for you. :)

Everyone knows the moon is also hollow... and was created and positioned by alien beings to form a perfect solar eclipse when viewed from Earth's surface...

http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html

Anyway your theory would need the moon to be lumpy and full of holes like Swiss Cheese, let alone an explanation of rings around the outer planets, or the lack there of here on Earth.


The moon is a dry blood beast. Guerrilla bands are rolling numbers in the next block of green vine ...

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

Did someone say Dinosaurs?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9OeSfb1r3A&feature=related

[Glass]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IBVPgalgRAk/THANO2OnKZI/AAAAAAAACIE/fxHL4d0lKqA/s1600/mammoth+meat+campaign.jpg

when I first saw this I thought, Chinese medicine........ then I realised it was supposed to be a tooth.