Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596888 > unrolled thread

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-05 23:43 -0800
    Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 12:19 -0800
      Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 13:53 -0800
        Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 10:21 -0800
          Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-08 10:47 -0800
    Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:32 +0100
      Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov> - 2022-12-24 10:48 -0500
        Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-26 10:49 +0100
          Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-28 19:26 +0000
            Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 12:28 -0800
              Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-28 21:44 +0100
                Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:45 +0100
              Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 13:30 -0800
            Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-28 12:36 -0800
              Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-29 09:47 +0100
                Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-29 19:59 +0000
                  Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-30 10:40 +0100
                    Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-31 20:08 +0000
                      Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-01 10:30 +0100
                        Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 14:26 -0800
                          Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-02 08:50 +0100
                            Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Braydon Germano <rrae@boddao.gn> - 2023-01-02 16:39 +0000
                            Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-01-03 07:51 +0100
        Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 19:38 -0800
          Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:45 +0100
    Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-26 05:53 -0800
      Re: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-26 15:23 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#596888 — "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"

"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"

NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
www.nasa.gov › press-release › nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
Sep 28, 2015 · 


New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it may mean that ...

First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply means that it ..





i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596914

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
> 
> NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
> www.nasa.gov › press-release › nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
> Sep 28, 2015 ·
> 
> New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
> www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
> Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it may mean that ...
> 
> First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
> www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
> Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply means that it ..
> 
> i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????
> 

I'm looking at the sky for a broken pipe somewhere where all this water on earth leaked from.


So, I'm looking past...

you have the stone age, ice age, bronze age....you guys seem to be missing a Rain Age. I'm talking about a lot of fuckin rain to fill up an ...ocean full!


I guess cave men didn't learn dat in skool.

and you guys haven't come very far i see...



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596920

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
> >
> > NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
> > www.nasa.gov › press-release › nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
> > Sep 28, 2015 ·
> >
> > New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
> > www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
> > Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it may mean that ...
> >
> > First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
> > www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
> > Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply means that it ..
> >
> > i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????
> >
> 
> I'm looking at the sky for a broken pipe somewhere where all this water on earth leaked from.
> 
> So, I'm looking past...
> 
> you have the stone age, ice age, bronze age....you guys seem to be missing a Rain Age. I'm talking about a lot of fuckin rain to fill up an ...ocean full!
> 
> I guess cave men didn't learn dat in skool.
> 
> and you guys haven't come very far i see...

I know the cavemen invented fire but, but, ..i watch Survivor on tvee and you guys STILL have a HARD TIME just ...making fire.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596951

Marx knew he was the liar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597010

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Marx knew he was the liar.

Grocho Marx?
-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598196

Am 06.12.2022 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
> "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
>
> NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
> www.nasa.gov › press-release › nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
> Sep 28, 2015 ·
>
>
> New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
> www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
> Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it may mean that ...
>
> First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
> www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
> Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply means that it ..
>
>
>
>
>
> i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????

I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true.

In this modell matter is created permanently inside the planet out of 
nothing.

The new matter is created in different forms in kind of 'plasma oven' 
and separtes in the inner Earth upon its specific density.

Water is very light as a gas, hence pushes upwards very hard.

That water evaporates out of vents and volcanoes and reaches the atmosphere.

There the water condensates, what most other gasses cannot do, and drops 
out of the sky as rain.

Over billions of years this water summed up to large puddles of water on 
the surface, which we call 'oceans'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598204

On 12/24/22 3:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.12.2022 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
>>
>> NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
>> www.nasa.gov › press-release › 
>> nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
>> Sep 28, 2015 ·
>>
>>
>> New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
>> www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
>> Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid 
>> water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it 
>> may mean that ...
>>
>> First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
>> www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
>> Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars 
>> lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply 
>> means that it ..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????
> 
> I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true.
> 
> In this modell matter is created permanently inside the planet out of 
> nothing.
> 
> The new matter is created in different forms in kind of 'plasma oven' 
> and separtes in the inner Earth upon its specific density.
> 
> Water is very light as a gas, hence pushes upwards very hard.

I just call that "gravity".

What you're describing is that there is a White Hole in the center of 
our planet, that is part of the yin and yang of a singularity... 
somewhere a black hole takes in matter and that matter is simultaneously 
through quantum mechanics expelling matter that is equal and opposite 
out of a White hole somewhere in this or another universe.

A a black hole sucks in matter/energy, the white hole expels anti-matter 
spinning as it exhausts energy and casts the energy/matter out of the 
white hole where it forms a crust or a build up of matter and energy.

It creates a hot core. and a cooling crust.

Alternate theories are everywhere.



> 
> That water evaporates out of vents and volcanoes and reaches the 
> atmosphere.
> 
> There the water condensates, what most other gasses cannot do, and drops 
> out of the sky as rain.
> 
> Over billions of years this water summed up to large puddles of water on 
> the surface, which we call 'oceans'.
> 
> 
> TH
> 


-- 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-That's Karma-

*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate 
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them 
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't 
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then 
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the 
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have 
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html

*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
72 - ObamaCare is like a box of Cracker Jacks, you have to buy it to 
find out what the surprise inside is? It's fractional Slavery "surprise".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598264

Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty:
> On 12/24/22 3:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.12.2022 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
>>>
>>> NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars
>>> www.nasa.gov › press-release ›
>>> nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-f...
>>> Sep 28, 2015 ·
>>>
>>>
>>> New evidence for liquid water on Mars - Space.com
>>> www.space.com › News › Science & Astronomy
>>> Sep 30, 2022 · Scientists have uncovered further evidence that liquid
>>> water exists beneath the ice cap at the southern pole of Mars and it
>>> may mean that ...
>>>
>>> First Discovery of Water on Mars | Phoenix Mars Lander
>>> www.kennedyspacecenter.com › blog › first-discovery-of-water-on-mars
>>> Jul 31, 2018 · Ten years ago, on July 31, 2008, NASA's Phoenix Mars
>>> lander confirmed the presence of water ice on Mars. Water ice simply
>>> means that it ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i just wanna know...where did all dis water on earth come from????
>>
>> I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is actually true.
>>
>> In this modell matter is created permanently inside the planet out of
>> nothing.
>>
>> The new matter is created in different forms in kind of 'plasma oven'
>> and separtes in the inner Earth upon its specific density.
>>
>> Water is very light as a gas, hence pushes upwards very hard.
>
> I just call that "gravity".
>
> What you're describing is that there is a White Hole in the center of
> our planet, that is part of the yin and yang of a singularity...
> somewhere a black hole takes in matter and that matter is simultaneously
> through quantum mechanics expelling matter that is equal and opposite
> out of a White hole somewhere in this or another universe.
>
> A a black hole sucks in matter/energy, the white hole expels anti-matter
> spinning as it exhausts energy and casts the energy/matter out of the
> white hole where it forms a crust or a build up of matter and energy.
>
> It creates a hot core. and a cooling crust.
>
> Alternate theories are everywhere.
>
Actually I have not speculated about the mechanism of matter creation.

(But what you have written sound quite good.)

I had a very different approach:

I wanted an empirical proof, that matter could be created out of nothing.

I needed this for the concept of 'structured spacetime', which is more 
or less my own invention.
(see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 
)

My idea was, to call material objects 'timelike stable patterns'.

So, in my modell matter is not created in the big-bang, but continously 
somewehere relatively close and unspectacular.

A way to prove such a possibility was to prove 'Growing Earth', because 
no matter from the big-bang could possibly reach the inner Earth.

If now the Earth grows, we would know, that a big part of big-bang 
theory was wrong (so called 'big-bang nucleosynthesis').

Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing 
Earth' and found countless hints into this direction.

I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting 
theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong.

Some are very simple and totally obvious:

For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates 
need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'.

Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate 
movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates).

On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the 
neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit, 
since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such 
enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to 
push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is 
so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence 
have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire 
Earth, like on a soccer ball).

Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a 
relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction).

So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways, 
than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in 
front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle.

IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly 
move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598450

Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty:

> Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing
> Earth' and found countless hints into this direction.
>
> I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting
> theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong.
>
> Some are very simple and totally obvious:
>
> For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates
> need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'.
>
> Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate
> movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates).
>
> On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the
> neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit,
> since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such
> enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to
> push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is
> so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence
> have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire
> Earth, like on a soccer ball).
>
> Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a
> relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction).
>
> So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways,
> than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in
> front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle.
>
> IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly
> move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'.
>
>
> TH
>

The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598456

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, Aether Regaind wrote:
> Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty: 
> 
> > Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing 
> > Earth' and found countless hints into this direction. 
> > 
> > I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting 
> > theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong. 
> > 
> > Some are very simple and totally obvious: 
> > 
> > For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates 
> > need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'. 
> > 
> > Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate 
> > movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates). 
> > 
> > On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the 
> > neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit, 
> > since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such 
> > enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to 
> > push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is 
> > so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence 
> > have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire 
> > Earth, like on a soccer ball). 
> > 
> > Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a 
> > relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction). 
> > 
> > So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways, 
> > than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in 
> > front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle. 
> > 
> > IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly 
> > move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'. 
> > 
> > 
> > TH 
> >
> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible. 
> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.

... to say nothing of providing even a little evidence...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598459

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, Aether Regaind wrote:
> > Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty: 
> > 
> > > Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing
> > > Earth' and found countless hints into this direction. 
> > > 
> > > I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting
> > > theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong. 
> > > 
> > > Some are very simple and totally obvious: 
> > > 
> > > For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates
> > > need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'. 
> > > 
> > > Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate
> > > movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates). 
> > > 
> > > On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the 
> > > neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit,
> > > since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such
> > > enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to
> > > push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is
> > > so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence
> > > have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire
> > > Earth, like on a soccer ball). 
> > > 
> > > Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a 
> > > relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction). 
> > > 
> > > So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways,
> > > than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in
> > > front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle. 
> > > 
> > > IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly
> > > move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH 
> > >
> > The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
> > Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
> 
> ... to say nothing of providing even a little evidence...

It is downright silly.
The previous silly one, the 'Shrinking Earth' theory
had at least a little superficial plausibility.
It did 'explain' those mountain ranges
as ripples caused by shrinkage,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598858

Am 28.12.2022 um 21:44 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>>>
>>> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
>>> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
>>
>> ... to say nothing of providing even a little evidence...
>
> It is downright silly.
> The previous silly one, the 'Shrinking Earth' theory
> had at least a little superficial plausibility.
> It did 'explain' those mountain ranges
> as ripples caused by shrinkage,

I wanted to show, that 'Growing Earth' (GE) must be true, because it 
explains EVERY formation on this planet (not only mountains).

The idea of GE about mountains is, that mountains were created under 
water as sea-mounts.

Then the curvature of the surface decreased (caused by growth of the 
planet) and the upper tectonic plates had to break (to allow lower 
curvature).

This creates cracks in the crust. And into these cracks the water flows, 
what makes sea-levels fall.

That in turn leaves former islands and sea-mounts on top of sandy planes.

This effect can be found everywhere around the globe.

There exist other effects, too, which could also create mountains.

But falling sea-levels is the main reason.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598789

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 12:28:37 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-8, Aether Regaind wrote: 
> > Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty: 
> > 
> > > Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing 
> > > Earth' and found countless hints into this direction. 
> > > 
> > > I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting 
> > > theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong. 
> > > 
> > > Some are very simple and totally obvious: 
> > > 
> > > For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates 
> > > need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'. 
> > > 
> > > Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate 
> > > movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates). 
> > > 
> > > On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the 
> > > neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit, 
> > > since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such 
> > > enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to 
> > > push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is 
> > > so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence 
> > > have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire 
> > > Earth, like on a soccer ball). 
> > > 
> > > Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a 
> > > relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction). 
> > > 
> > > So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways, 
> > > than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in 
> > > front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle. 
> > > 
> > > IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly 
> > > move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > TH 
> > > 
> > The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible. 
> > Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
> ... to say nothing of providing even a little evidence...

Paul? I heard you tried to break out of where you belong...
too bad for you... that you still deserve to stay...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598458

Aether Regaind wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty:
> 
> > Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing
> > Earth' and found countless hints into this direction.
> >
> > I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting
> > theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong.
> >
> > Some are very simple and totally obvious:
> >
> > For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates
> > need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'.
> >
> > Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate
> > movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates).
> >
> > On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the
> > neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit,
> > since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such
> > enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to
> > push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is
> > so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence
> > have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire
> > Earth, like on a soccer ball).
> >
> > Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a
> > relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction).
> >
> > So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways,
> > than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in
> > front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle.
> >
> > IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly
> > move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'.
> >
> >
> > TH
> >
> 
> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.

TH IS the link!



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598516

Am 28.12.2022 um 21:36 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Aether Regaind wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Heger:> Am 24.12.2022 um 16:48 schrieb BeamMeUpScotty:
>>
>>> Therefore I have spent almost ten years on that subject of 'Growing
>>> Earth' and found countless hints into this direction.
>>>
>>> I also found a large number of arguments, why and how the competiting
>>> theory called 'plate tectonics' must be wrong.
>>>
>>> Some are very simple and totally obvious:
>>>
>>> For instance the Earth is entirely covered with plates. These plates
>>> need to move upon the planet to allow 'subduction'.
>>>
>>> Plate tectonics assumes now kind of 'conveyor belt mechanism' for plate
>>> movements, but Earth is actually spherical (as are the plates).
>>>
>>> On a sphere the parts of that sphere need to 'scratch' along the
>>> neighboring plates or push them away, before they could move a tiny bit,
>>> since these plates cannot climb over the neighboring plates. And such
>>> enromous sratches or compressions are not observed, hence plates need to
>>> push the neighboring plates sideways, before they could move. This is
>>> so, because plates are part of a spherical shell of the Earth, hence
>>> have a roughly hexagonal form (otherwise they could not cover the entire
>>> Earth, like on a soccer ball).
>>>
>>> Now this form has the greatest width roughly in the middle and a
>>> relatively small edge at the front (in any possible direction).
>>>
>>> So, the middle part of a hexagon needs to push plates further sideways,
>>> than plates can vanish underneeth other plates, because the edge in
>>> front is shorter than a plate is wide in the middle.
>>>
>>> IOW plates got stuck in the middle of other plates and cannot possibly
>>> move according to plate tectonics 'conveyor belt mechanism'.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>
>> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
>> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
>
> TH IS the link!
>

Well, there are a lot of other sources.

The idea stems from Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, who wrote a book in German 
named 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (about the growing Earth ball).
http://www.wachsende-erde.de/web-content/bilder/hilgenb/hilgenberg1933.pdf

I knew about this theory from two sources.

One were the videos of Neal Adams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

(I have also participated in Neal Adams' mail group for a while, which 
was discussing the topic).


Another strange source was, that I have spent a lot of time in the very 
same building as Hilgenberg. And as far as I can recall there was  still 
one of Hilgenberg's expanding globe modells present in the late 70th at 
the university TU-Berlin.


I wanted a 'experimental' proof for something I have developed myself, 
which was meant as a connection between GR and QM:


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598547

Thomas Heger:> Am 28.12.2022 um 21:36 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Aether Regaind wrote:
>>>
>>> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
>>> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
>>
>> TH IS the link!
>>
>
> Well, there are a lot of other sources.
>
> The idea stems from Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, who wrote a book in German
> named 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (about the growing Earth ball).
> http://www.wachsende-erde.de/web-content/bilder/hilgenb/hilgenberg1933.pdf
>
> I knew about this theory from two sources.
>
> One were the videos of Neal Adams:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
>
> (I have also participated in Neal Adams' mail group for a while, which
> was discussing the topic).
>
> Another strange source was, that I have spent a lot of time in the very
> same building as Hilgenberg. And as far as I can recall there was  still
> one of Hilgenberg's expanding globe modells present in the late 70th at
> the university TU-Berlin.
>
>
> I wanted a 'experimental' proof for something I have developed myself,
> which was meant as a connection between GR and QM:
>
>
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> TH

@Thomas Helger, Thanks for the links.

I found a German documentary discussing Hilgenberg's work:

[Doku] über die Theorie einer Erdexpansion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP9Hl_I7L_8

Around 9:33 the Hilgenberg paleo-globes and TU-Berlin are both shown.
Prof. Karl-Heinz Jacob remarks that the GROWING EARTH THEORY is now a
THOUGHTCRIME, just like the ᴁther.

I watched this with closed-caption/subtitles (auto-translated) turned
on. A funny thing happened at 22:14 where Google naively translated
EINSTEIN as "A STONE". The full sentence is:

"The cosmic ᴁther is no longer an option as the source for the mass
increase, because A STONE had abolished the ᴁther and declared it
unnecessary".

The documentary suggests neutrinos from the sun as a possible source of
the mass increase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598619

Am 29.12.2022 um 20:59 schrieb Aether Regaind:
> Thomas Heger:> Am 28.12.2022 um 21:36 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Aether Regaind wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The growing earth theory sounds interesting, though highly implausible.
>>>> Good links to resources on this theory would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> TH IS the link!
>>>
>>
>> Well, there are a lot of other sources.
>>
>> The idea stems from Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, who wrote a book in German
>> named 'Vom wachsenden Erdball' (about the growing Earth ball).
>> http://www.wachsende-erde.de/web-content/bilder/hilgenb/hilgenberg1933.pdf
>>
>> I knew about this theory from two sources.
>>
>> One were the videos of Neal Adams:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
>>
>> (I have also participated in Neal Adams' mail group for a while, which
>> was discussing the topic).
>>
>> Another strange source was, that I have spent a lot of time in the very
>> same building as Hilgenberg. And as far as I can recall there was  still
>> one of Hilgenberg's expanding globe modells present in the late 70th at
>> the university TU-Berlin.
>>
>>
>> I wanted a 'experimental' proof for something I have developed myself,
>> which was meant as a connection between GR and QM:
>>
>>
>>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> @Thomas Helger, Thanks for the links.
>
> I found a German documentary discussing Hilgenberg's work:
>
> [Doku] über die Theorie einer Erdexpansion
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP9Hl_I7L_8
>
> Around 9:33 the Hilgenberg paleo-globes and TU-Berlin are both shown.
> Prof. Karl-Heinz Jacob remarks that the GROWING EARTH THEORY is now a
> THOUGHTCRIME, just like the ᴁther.
>
> I watched this with closed-caption/subtitles (auto-translated) turned
> on. A funny thing happened at 22:14 where Google naively translated
> EINSTEIN as "A STONE". The full sentence is:
>
> "The cosmic ᴁther is no longer an option as the source for the mass
> increase, because A STONE had abolished the ᴁther and declared it
> unnecessary".
>
> The documentary suggests neutrinos from the sun as a possible source of
> the mass increase.
>

A possible source of the newly created matter and its enegy source is an 
everyday experienced forced know as gravity.

You should think of gravity a physical flow of something invisible, 
which goes into the Earth.

Now what shall this energy do inside the Earth?

Creating new matter would be an option.

This new matter bubbles upwards and gathers underneath the crust. It 
bubbles out of the crust mainly under water in what is called 'black 
smokers' and also in volcanoes.

Now we can see, why 'Growing Earth' got actually banned:

it is closely related to the so called 'abiogenic oil theory'.


This theory is, of course, also correct, but got strictly banned, 
because enormous amounts of money are generated by selling the oil from 
extremely deep sources.

Especially Russia's oil industry is based on the aboigenic oil theory 
(which was actually invented there by Mendelejev).

Now you only need to add two and two and understand the world....


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598724

Thomas Heger:> Am 29.12.2022 um 20:59 schrieb Aether Regaind:
> A possible source of the newly created matter and its enegy source is an
> everyday experienced forced know as gravity.
>
> You should think of gravity a physical flow of something invisible,
> which goes into the Earth.
>
> Now what shall this energy do inside the Earth?
>
> Creating new matter would be an option.
>
> This new matter bubbles upwards and gathers underneath the crust. It
> bubbles out of the crust mainly under water in what is called 'black
> smokers' and also in volcanoes.
>
> Now we can see, why 'Growing Earth' got actually banned:
>
> it is closely related to the so called 'abiogenic oil theory'.
>
>
> This theory is, of course, also correct, but got strictly banned,
> because enormous amounts of money are generated by selling the oil from
> extremely deep sources.
>
> Especially Russia's oil industry is based on the aboigenic oil theory
> (which was actually invented there by Mendelejev).
>
> Now you only need to add two and two and understand the world....
>
>
> TH
>
>
>

Current "constant sized earth" plate tectonics' weakest link is
SUBDUCTION. It is quite literally shoving uncomfortable truths under the
rug. The uncomfortable truth being that ALL of the ocean-beds are less
than 200 Million years old, while the continental crust ('the rug') is
about 4 Billion years old.

INCONTROVERTIBLE proof for subduction seems to be lacking.

On quora the best evidence is said to be:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-for-subduction

"
The Benioff Zone is a seismically-defined layer of the oceanic slab
being shoved under a continent.

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f70cef064f4ae3fe5bd6dba790466ee0
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2e59f31c974076a05ce516e5b8f1093f

In the diagram immediately above, we see earthquake seismicity
associated with the Benioff Zone. Red spots indicate shallow low energy
earthquakes, green and blue indicate medium energy earthquakes at medium
depths, and brown indicates high energy (“strong”) earthquakes - note
that the strongest quakes are generated at the greater depths.
"

Shouldn't the best evidence be something along the lines:

"
Survey-stations/benchmarks have been fixed to the sea floor on the Nazca
plate (off the west coast of Peru/Chile S.America) and also on the coast
of Peru/Chile.

The distance between these offshore/seaside and coastal/landside
benchmarks consistently reduces by the same amount as the extrusion at
the western edge of the Nazca plate.
"

The problem with the evidence quoted on quora is that even partial
subduction can explain the seismic activity coming from the Benioff zone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598758

Am 31.12.2022 um 21:08 schrieb Aether Regaind:
  ..

>>
>
> Current "constant sized earth" plate tectonics' weakest link is
> SUBDUCTION. It is quite literally shoving uncomfortable truths under the
> rug. The uncomfortable truth being that ALL of the ocean-beds are less
> than 200 Million years old, while the continental crust ('the rug') is
> about 4 Billion years old.
>
> INCONTROVERTIBLE proof for subduction seems to be lacking.
>
> On quora the best evidence is said to be:
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-for-subduction
>
> "
> The Benioff Zone is a seismically-defined layer of the oceanic slab
> being shoved under a continent.
>
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f70cef064f4ae3fe5bd6dba790466ee0
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2e59f31c974076a05ce516e5b8f1093f
>
> In the diagram immediately above, we see earthquake seismicity
> associated with the Benioff Zone. Red spots indicate shallow low energy
> earthquakes, green and blue indicate medium energy earthquakes at medium
> depths, and brown indicates high energy (“strong”) earthquakes - note
> that the strongest quakes are generated at the greater depths.

I personally think, that earthquakes are in fact 'electric' and found an 
alternative explanation for Earthquakes long ago.

The reason for Earthquakes along the edges of tectonic plates is, that 
molten stone is (a little) conductive, hence would allow to connect to 
the so called 'Birkeland currents' by a magnetic connection similar to a 
transformator.

The currents in the ground would now be limitted by adjacent rock, where 
high electric tension is created this way, because that adjacent rock is 
not molten.

This causes an inverted piezo effect, what makes the crust above shake.

I had tried to prove this by showing, that more Earthquakes occur, where 
the surface is cunductive and where inside a circular ring of 
electro-magnetic induction through the athmosphere from the Birkeland 
currencts to the ground there is something in between like a mountain.


This conductivity is created by lakes and rivers. And mountains 
inbetween have more often Earthquakes then where there are no rivers.

This is a hint, that not plate movement is responsible for Earthquakes, 
but conductivity of certain parts of the crust, which interact with 
parts, which can produce movements from electric tensions (like quartz).

  "
>
> Shouldn't the best evidence be something along the lines:
>
> "
> Survey-stations/benchmarks have been fixed to the sea floor on the Nazca
> plate (off the west coast of Peru/Chile S.America) and also on the coast
> of Peru/Chile.
>
> The distance between these offshore/seaside and coastal/landside
> benchmarks consistently reduces by the same amount as the extrusion at
> the western edge of the Nazca plate.
> "
>
> The problem with the evidence quoted on quora is that even partial
> subduction can explain the seismic activity coming from the Benioff zone.
>
'Can explain' is a dangerous concept, since also 'angy elves' can 
explain earthquakes.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598793

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:30:34 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 31.12.2022 um 21:08 schrieb Aether Regaind: 
> ..
> >> 
> > 
> > Current "constant sized earth" plate tectonics' weakest link is 
> > SUBDUCTION. It is quite literally shoving uncomfortable truths under the 
> > rug. The uncomfortable truth being that ALL of the ocean-beds are less 
> > than 200 Million years old, while the continental crust ('the rug') is 
> > about 4 Billion years old. 
> > 
> > INCONTROVERTIBLE proof for subduction seems to be lacking. 
> > 
> > On quora the best evidence is said to be: 
> > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evidence-for-subduction 
> > 
> > " 
> > The Benioff Zone is a seismically-defined layer of the oceanic slab 
> > being shoved under a continent. 
> > 
> > https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f70cef064f4ae3fe5bd6dba790466ee0 
> > https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2e59f31c974076a05ce516e5b8f1093f 
> > 
> > In the diagram immediately above, we see earthquake seismicity 
> > associated with the Benioff Zone. Red spots indicate shallow low energy 
> > earthquakes, green and blue indicate medium energy earthquakes at medium 
> > depths, and brown indicates high energy (“strong”) earthquakes - note 
> > that the strongest quakes are generated at the greater depths.
> I personally think, that earthquakes are in fact 'electric' and found an 
> alternative explanation for Earthquakes long ago. 
> 
> The reason for Earthquakes along the edges of tectonic plates is, that 
> molten stone is (a little) conductive, hence would allow to connect to 
> the so called 'Birkeland currents' by a magnetic connection similar to a 
> transformator. 
> 
> The currents in the ground would now be limitted by adjacent rock, where 
> high electric tension is created this way, because that adjacent rock is 
> not molten. 
> 
> This causes an inverted piezo effect, what makes the crust above shake. 
> 
> I had tried to prove this by showing, that more Earthquakes occur, where 
> the surface is cunductive and where inside a circular ring of 
> electro-magnetic induction through the athmosphere from the Birkeland 
> currencts to the ground there is something in between like a mountain. 
> 
> 
> This conductivity is created by lakes and rivers. And mountains 
> inbetween have more often Earthquakes then where there are no rivers. 
> 
> This is a hint, that not plate movement is responsible for Earthquakes, 
> but conductivity of certain parts of the crust, which interact with 
> parts, which can produce movements from electric tensions (like quartz).
> " 
> > 
> > Shouldn't the best evidence be something along the lines: 
> > 
> > " 
> > Survey-stations/benchmarks have been fixed to the sea floor on the Nazca 
> > plate (off the west coast of Peru/Chile S.America) and also on the coast 
> > of Peru/Chile. 
> > 
> > The distance between these offshore/seaside and coastal/landside 
> > benchmarks consistently reduces by the same amount as the extrusion at 
> > the western edge of the Nazca plate. 
> > " 
> > 
> > The problem with the evidence quoted on quora is that even partial 
> > subduction can explain the seismic activity coming from the Benioff zone. 
> >
> 'Can explain' is a dangerous concept, since also 'angy elves' can 
> explain earthquakes. 
> 
> 
> TH

You are appropriating as if you conceived it, what Tesla discovered more than 110 years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web