What a small world we live in...

[Cebu_4_2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRalvHJVioE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRalvHJVioE

[Twisted Titan]

Interesting.........

[BarnkleBob]

Yes it is expando-earth... a small earth means less gravity which means it could support dinosaurs. Lower gravity would allow blood to circulate to their heads... greater gravity would kill them because blood wouldnt flow to the head.. today a giraffes height is limited to 12' due to gravity... seems the core of earth must be plasma that reacts to stimulation from the sun... E=mc2 backwards... energy into matter creates the expando model...

[midnight rambler]

a small earth means less gravity which means it could support dinosaurs

Gravity is totally dependent upon mass, where are you thinking this additional mass came from? Conversion from energy?? ???

[osoab]

Gravity is totally dependent upon mass, where are you thinking this additional mass came from? Conversion from energy?? ???

I thought it was with the smaller size the Earth had a much greater rotational speed. As Earth expanded the rotational speed decreased.

[General of Darkness]

I thought it was with the smaller size the Earth had a much greater rotational speed. As Earth expanded the rotational speed decreased.

Actually if the rotation of the earths axis stays the same and the earth expands the speed on the planet would increase but theoretically 24 hours would still be the same. Keep in mind we rotate at 900 miles an hour right now.

[BarnkleBob]

, in the Expando Planet model, the continuous
stream of energy from the Sun goes not only to the
surface of the planets, but also to the center of the
planets, where, given the correct conditions, and the
existence of an active plasma core (Mars, as an
aside, has none, and is therefore, a 'dead' planet), this energy is transmuted into matter. Note also that
plasma is a great form of an 'energetic antenna' and
actually (in laboratories) seems to draw energy to it
via sympathetic resonance. So some of the energies of the Sun hit the surface
of the earth, but energy at levels we cannot detect
without really really working at it, go to the center of
the planet where they are condensed by that
plasma environment into matter. By the way, the plasma model would allow for a
faster spinning core, AND a reducing magnetic field
as the field strength is not dependent on size nor
spin rate. And further the plasma core idea does fit
with observable fluctuations in magnetic field
strength over these nearly 12, 000 year cycles. And again, plasma core idea works with heat levels
internal to the earth (lower you go, hotter it gets), as
well as abiotic oil, and the creation of minerals as
well as their location of deposits. So, since magic likely is not how the core of the
earth generates the magnetic field that we observe,
it would seem more likely that the explanation is that
the core of the earth is plasma. Plasma is highly
excited energy, and does develop prodigious
magnetic fields all out of proportion to its size. All of the observable magnetic effects on earth can be
explained with the plasma core idea. Also, human
experience with plasma fields and forms in
laboratories provides observable evidence of the
electro magnetic effects every bit as variant as seen
on earth. So, in the Expando Planet model of thinking about
Earth, the plasma core gets energy steadily from the
Sun and as a necessity, must convert this steady
stream of energy into matter. Thus if the Expando
Planet model is correct, one of the predictable
effects would be that the planet would pretty much continuously grow. And that is also what observable,
manifesting reality demonstrates. The Earth is slowly
growing. Even mainstream science and mainstream
media acknowledge this, though they never say why
it should grow continuously if the core of the earth
was actually iron. Oh well.... anyway, the plasma receives energy from the Sun at the core of the
Earth, converts it to matter (e=mc2) and so then
two logical questions then arise.....if energy is being
transformed into matter in the middle of the earth,
then where does it go? And....what happens to this
whole matter creation mechanism if there is a sudden burst of energy from the Sun? Mainstream science has always maintained that the
planet grows slowly over time even without
addressing why this should be the case. Further the
whole point of the plate tectonic theory is 'propelled'
by this idea of slow movement of the plates
creeping about on liquid magma. Though against the idea of entropy, the cooling of the planet over time,
and the rotation of the supposed iron core, the
whole of the plate tectonic theory fails to hold up.
Further, the presence of vast, previously unknown
levels, of active volcanoes all across the planet does
not support plate tectonics. Indeed, volcanoes are found even in places that the plate tectonic theory
say should be subduction zones. So, to address the
question of where does the continuously created
matter go, we need only look around us. The matter
quite actually 'bubbles' up out of, or as, the earth.
And further, since it is created in the middle of an enclosed sphere (more or less, the earth is actually
an oblate spheroid), the effects of matter created in
the middle of a closed planet are naturally
predictable. Imagine pumping water into an orange
with a syringe.

[BarnkleBob]

If the Expando Planet model is correct, there are
some predictable effects that should be visible. One
is that the 'skin' of our orange (planet earth) will
rupture in specific ways that should form 'crinkly bits'
for coast line on the anterior side of the tearing.
These would be expected to be rough, ragged, vertically exposing of interior skin features, and not
evenly spaced. In fact, we do see these in the form
of the fiords observable on the western coasts of all
continents. Further, if one obtains a reasonably
accurate topological globe, it can be seen that no
eastern coast of any continent resembles the western coast of that same continent. And all
western coasts of all continents resemble each
other, as do all eastern coasts of all continents.
Further, even large islands such as Greenland,
Iceland, Britain, et al show the same conditions. That the western coasts are alike all across the
planet, seems to be evidence of NO rotational
change of direction. The idea being that a spinning
planet always going the same direction, for millions
of years, would naturally sculpt itself differently on
the leading, or eastern coasts, over the trailing, or western coasts. And we do indeed see this at all
levels, macroscopically, geologically,
geomorphologically, topologically, and even
biologically (different habitats supporting different
species). And conversely, if that same planet had
periodically changed rotation, there would be evidence for that on the coasts. Indeed, the giant, 2
kilometers high waves from the oceans sloshing out
of their basins would be expected to have carved
and eroded most distinguishing features from the
coasts of all continents. If that had occurred even
twice then effects would still be visible even 26,000 years later. No evidence of that is found. We would
expect to see the western coasts very torn down,
and not the sharp, ragged, torn appearance actually
present. Further, it is on the eastern side of the
continents that we find the sunken cities and other
ancient signs of habitation. Further, the western sides of the continents are the more geologically
active, which should not be the case if there were
not expansion occurring continuously in the absence
of crustal rotation. Indeed, the total absence of any
expected degradation of the western, southern, or
northern coasts of any continent (Antarctica excepted due to its location) is a very key point of
evidence against rotation in any other direction than
current. Repeating this for clarity. If the earth had
ever had rotation problems that caused the oceans
to leave their basins, we would see the evidence on
some coast other than east. In fact, the eastern coasts of all the continents show continuous effects
from the east to west rotation of our planet, and can
be used as a model for searching for such evidence
of rotation. None exists. As an aside, if the plate tectonic theory was
accurate, there would be more volcanoes along the
eastern seaboard of the American continents, as
well as along the western coast of Europe. Many
more volcanoes. In fact, it should resemble the “ring
of fire” in the Pacific. Speaking of volcanoes and magma, mainstream academic understanding of the
earth and its formative history, would maintain that
subduction zones should exist at all plate
boundaries, and yet, there is no evidence of a
subduction zone anywhere on earth. And, if the
plate tectonic theory were correct, there should be NO mid Atlantic Ridge, nor the deep fissure valleys
of the Pacific Basin. These are both predictable
effects of planetary expansion. In the case of the
Mid Atlantic Ridge, this ridge is specifically and
exactly described as a necessary part of the
Expando Planet theory, and is not at all explained by any variant of plate tectonics. In the Expando Planet
model it is required that the 'skin' of the planet
rupture at some point, at that this point is where the
denser forms of matter (minerals, newly formed
rocks, et al) will emerge. Unlike the gas and liquid
matter being created in the earth, the solid condensates require at least one specific point of
exit to the surface. Where the gasses and liquids
can percolate up to the surface as we observe
petroleum to do, minerals, specifically molten
material that will crystallize as it cools, must force
open a fissure to release the pressures behind it. The deep ocean valleys of the Marianas and other
Pacific Basin fissures are expected within the
Expando Planet model as the 'skin' of the planet is
forced apart in the Atlantic, where the new matter is
coming up so thick as to form a ridge, it must
necessarily 'thin' out over other areas since the whole of the sphere is expanding. The Expando Planet model would also necessarily
have the skin of the planet get crinkly as pressures
of new matter forcing their way to the surface
worked themselves out. So ridges would be
expected to form. These would necessarily also be
affected by the direction of rotation of the planet during the time that they formed and existed. So if
the planet had ever rotated any other direction, there
would be evidence, left over from gradual erosion, as
well as 'spin direction resonance' found on the
coasts, specifically the west coasts. The 'spin
direction resonance' effect is what we see happening when, as an instance, a tornado deposits
debris, it has a tendency to only be on specific sides
of buildings or other objects. Similar effects show up
in where the dust and things collect in parking lots.
Basically the same principle. We see no such effects
indicating anything other than east direction rotation. Also if the Expando Planet theory is correct, then it
is expected that the ruptured surface of the planet
should resemble a picture puzzle in that the various
sections should fit exactly back together when the
'new parts' are removed. Anyone who has ever
looked at a globe gets the idea that ALL the continents were once connected along all the edges.
The standard explanation for this offered by
academics is the idea of one giant continent called
Pangaea in one giant ocean on the earth at the
same size as it is now. This explanation is clearly
wrong as it defies math in the form of the spherical trigonometry expressed in the coasts of the
continents. In other words. It is not possible, on a
globe that is the size of today's earth, to fit the
continents back together. The curvature of the earth
gets in the way. The edges do not fit when this is
tried. But clearly, the coasts of the continents, just as with the edges of a torn piece of paper, look like
they fit together. Indeed they do. Simply not at the
current size of the earth. For the edges of the
continents to snug together (at the continental
shelves), the earth would have had to be only about
one third its present size.

[BarnkleBob]

Would that size of earth work for dinosaurs?
Well....not surprisingly, yes. Obviously dinosaurs
existed as we have their remains. Further, while the
dinosaur fossil distribution itself supports the
Expando Planet model, we need only examine the
blood pressure issue to satisfy ourselves that this is a valid example. Basically the 'dinosaur conundrum'
is as follows: how is it possible that dinosaurs could
live on earth at such great size (height and girth),
when we know that the tallest animals now
(giraffes) are at the far limit of blood pressure versus
gravity. At less than 17 feet in height, a giraffe is safe and happy, but let is grow only another foot, and it
will die as the pressure on the heart becomes too
much as it tries to pump blood up that height.
However, dinosaurs were seriously taller than 17
feet. If the earth did not have much reduced gravity
during the time of the dinosaurs, then their vascular system could never have handled the blood
pressures required to raise blood the great distance
to their brains. The same applies for the really big
dinosaurs with tremendous girth. Other issues as to
how their 'bird bones' could have supported such
great weights are also related to the gravity of earth issue. Various theories have been proposed that
include gravity as a variable in earth's past. This is
my assumption, and the mechanism that is
favorable is the Expando Planet model. Dinosaurs
could not live on earth today. They far exceed the
limits of what current levels of gravity will allow for pumping blood via biological means. So? If the
gravity was less during their day, what could account
for it? One postulate that makes sense, is that the
gravity was less, and it was due to earth being
significantly smaller. As cited in the previous
example of the continents as jigsaw puzzle. As an aside, at some point, expansion of the earth will
reach levels which make it impossible for humans to
exist for the same reason. We will all be too tall to
pump blood to our brains. So look to your local
politician, and take that as a warning as to
humanities future....life without blood in the brain. There is also evidence in human works that the
earth of today is not the earth of our ancestors.
Since our species is periodically kicked to near
extinction by catastrophe that the Expando Planet
theory attempts to explain, it is understandable that
there would not be many signs within our own work. This is due to most civilizations rising between the
cycles of expansions. The problems encountered
during the expansions wipe us out to really
insignificant levels, and fundamentally reset the
whole civilization to zero. But, there are some
monuments, in fact thousands of them which may be evidence of the Expando Planet cycles. One point is the 'mystery' of the megaliths (giant
stone buildings) which are all over the planet. A
great many of which are so large, and involve stones
that are so large, that our current civilization could
not duplicate the work. Further some of these
megaliths are so large, that we humans have mistaken them for generations as part of the natural
landscape. But, here is an interesting point. In a
smaller version of earth, just as with the dinosaurs,
gravity is less, and these stones would have
weighed far less, thus presenting less of an issue in
construction. Other evidence of expanding earth is found in the
design of some of the megaliths, which can be
decoded to produce hints toward this idea. This
subject is too voluminous to approach here. But,
even absent any attempt by the makers of the
megaliths to communicate ideas across time to future generations, there are physical effects on the
megalithic monuments themselves which support
the idea of an expanding planet model. Without
getting into too much of debates about design ideas
in ancient structures, we can at least note that such
desert ruins as the Great Pyramids at Giza have boat docks at their base, and they and the Sphinx,
show damage from centuries of ocean water
exposure. While there are many theories as to how
these structures could have spent centuries with
their bases in water, one explanation is that as the
earth expands, water levels are significantly affected. Not as Patrick Geryl suggests, nor as in the bible
myths of a planet covering flood, but rather as a
result of shifting (rising) matter entering the oceans
and displacing water. Further, the actual mechanism
from the expansion would be thought to produce
neither tidal style flooding, nor tsunami flooding, but rather something entirely different. Perhaps best
described as 'persistent flooding', there are many
descriptions of such in many ancient texts including
those in Sanskrit. Graham Hancock's work,
Underworld, in which he visits many of the sunken
cities around the planet actually highlights the mechanism of 'persistent flooding' without using that
label. He refers to ancient accounts of 'flood waters'
that 'just kept coming'. Unlike the tide, these did not
retreat. And unlike tsunami, these floods were not
particularly violent. Just water levels rising, and
continuing to rise without stopping. Fast enough to swallow your coastal city over a week, but not so
fast that humans and animals cannot stay ahead of
it. And these waters were noted to still be supporting
tidal actions. So it was as though two separate
forces were at work on the ocean, each affecting its
volume in different ways. Further, we have direct, experiential evidence of
Expando Planet model on a small scale being
demonstrated on the moons that our various
spacecraft have seen in their journeys. Frequently
(especially these last few years of increased Sun
activity) these will present expansion in the form of giant geysers of material shooting out into space.
Hmmmm...where did that stuff being thrown into
space come from if not from the pressures of new
matter being created in plasma balls at the center of
these fellow solar system occupants? How is it that
a small moon is able to spew geysers of material into space repeatedly? Would it not exhaust itself
over the course of millions or billions of years? The Expando Planet model can explain many of the
various enigmas present in our solar system. As the
Expando Planet theory is fractally based, then it
must appear as a design pattern in other parts of
universe to be a valid concept (in my opinion). This
is just what is observable from the very large with the Expando Universe model (for another article),
and down to the very small with how insect shells
(skin) grows, how human skin alters itself to cover
burns, and other scarring features on all animals.
The basic design pattern is also present in plants
from their root growth methods to how their skin coverings accommodate internal growth. And note that the whole “Altantis going beneath the
waves” concept needs to be reconsidered in light of
this theory. Plate tectonics cannot explain how
whole continents would just sink, and rapidly. The
Expando Planet model allows for the edges of the
continents to subside, as we see around India, and Japan, and throughout Asia, as well as in the
Caribbean, and Mediterranean seas. It also allows
that such events could happen quickly, as in
essence, the low lying coastal plains will 'slide down
as the continental shelves supporting them slide
down into the crevasse' created by the expansion of the planet. But, the Expando Planet model does not
allow for whole continents to just 'sink'. However, in
the Expando Planet model, Atlantis and other
civilizations can easily be on coastal plains that sink
as the cracks widen and the skin of the earth 'thins
out' in areas. Further, the new matter rising both as solid minerals in the Mid Atlantic, and as magma
from all over the planet, both will cause the ocean
level fluctuations as land forms change near the
cracks in the earth's skin. Further, it can be expected
that a large proportion of the new matter being
created will be water. This will also affect the ocean levels. The Expando Planet model is also supported by the
evidence of large areas of the planet going into an
'instant freeze' such that animals are flash frozen
while munching on grass or pies. The Expando
Planet model has at its core (pun intended) the
plasma core which can become very chaotic, and is expected to produce huge 'toroidal imbalances'
which will result in a bunch of 'magnetic field
anomalies' that will resemble 'magnetic tornadoes'.
These will reach out into deep space and will funnel
down not only huge levels of highly charged
particles, but also, vast quantities of very very very cold cold from space. The air will freeze as it is. So
will anything under one of these toroidal vortexes.
And since many of them will be associated with
where the new magnetic pole will reside (after a bit
of a walk-about), it is understandable that many of
these flash frozen areas will stay frozen.

[BarnkleBob]

You may also find This very interesting: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm

[BarnkleBob]

And this: Artic changing rapidly.... "We are surely on the verge of seeing a new Arctic," said Jeffries. "And, since the Arctic is not isolated from the global environmental system, indeed it is an integral and vital part of that system, we can expect to see Arctic change have global environmental and socio-economic consequences." http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/top-officials-meet-at-onr-as-arctic-changes-quicken