Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:35 pm

That's a good point. And you are right, in 49 pages we'd missed that. Well done.

In essence, as the planet grows it absorbs a larger charge which transmutes into more matter that grows the planet more, etc... At what point does it pop. HA!

User avatar
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by D_Archer » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:58 am

If the earth is new in this orbit (saturn theory etc), after some sort of equilibrium is reached the growing would stop i suppose.

- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:20 am
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by jsmorrison55 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:48 am

^ i think that, if a planet stops turning, and stopped orbiting, that would be the time that a planet could stop growing.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:08 am

Remember, the Earth is part of the electric circuit; galaxy, sun, etc... There is no way to isolate it from that circuit, so it will always be growing. Sometimes fast like between 6k & 10k years ago when there was rapid growth and the megafauna died off, sometimes slow like now where the growth can be ignored as error in the GPS system. At some point the data from the GPS system will be too big to ignore, then everything will break wide open. HA!

Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:37 pm

The question being "what do you think?" from page one.
I think there is merit in the growing planet theory. I think the earth has grown in the past but is not necessarily growing now. I think the growth is episodic and likely catastrophic in nature. I think the former crust of the previous sphere no longer conforming to the larger sphere has profound implications toward our understanding of big picture geophysics. I think I am going to call it "lithodynamics". I think the rocks are crying out. I think I think too much, therefore I drink. Cheers!


Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:14 am

Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Sparky » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:06 am

sureshbansal342 wrote:please observe this link ... ntrol.html

Hmmmmm, looks like a few assorted facts and a great deal of unassociated, hysterical, alarmist nonsense.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun May 01, 2011 6:33 pm

Oh, that is such a fun article, but I have no idea where they get their value of "700,000 years", plus the core is hollow so there is no spinning out of control. Here are some of the pictures from the article.

Doomsday: Earth's core spinning out of control

Strange core mutations may signal Expanding Earth Doomsday. ... ntrol.html
exploding-earth11.jpg (27.3 KiB) Viewed 10170 times
paukner.jpg (30.35 KiB) Viewed 10170 times

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon May 02, 2011 1:13 pm

This is another example of a region where the Earth grew.

Mystery solved? Scientist claims he's finally discovered how Grand Canyon was created ... anyon.html
cold anomaly.jpg
Colorado Plateau

Four corners.jpg
The article is cast in the classic model and tries to explain things by magma, but if you look at the raised area, and what the study found, you can see that while the Grand Canyon was being carved, along with large features of the area, the crust was growing beneath raising the plateau.

All that energy flowing in built crust while carving out the landscape.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue May 17, 2011 10:53 am

This is a great summary of the controversy, with tons of links to background information. The Younger Dryas event 14,500 years ago still needs to be explained.

Comet Theory Comes Crashing to Earth ... rth-31180/
An elegant archaeological hypothesis, under fire for results that can’t be replicated, may ultimately come undone.

It seemed like such an elegant answer to an age-old mystery: the disappearance of what are arguably North America’s first people. A speeding comet nearly 13,000 years ago was the culprit, the theory goes, spraying ice and rocks across the continent, killing the Clovis people and the mammoths they fed on, and plunging the region into a deep chill. The idea so captivated the public that three movies describing the catastrophe were produced.

But now, four years after the purportedly supportive evidence was reported, a host of scientific authorities systematically have made the case that the comet theory is “bogus.” Researchers from multiple scientific fields are calling the theory one of the most misguided ideas in the history of modern archaeology, which begs for an independent review so an accurate record is reflected in the literature.

“It is an impossible scenario,” says Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., where he taps the world’s fastest computers for nuclear bomb experiments to study such impacts. His computations show the debris from such a comet couldn’t cover the proposed impact field. In March, a “requiem” for the theory even was published by a group that included leading specialists from archaeology to botany.

Yet, the scientists who described the alleged impact in a hallowed U.S. scientific journal refuse to consider the critics’ evidence — insisting they are correct, even though no one can replicate their work: the hallmark of credibility in the scientific world.

The primary authors of the theory are an unusual mix: James Kennett, a virtual father of marine geology from the University of California, Santa Barbara; Richard Firestone, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California; and Allen West, an unknown academic from the mining industry who lives in Dewey, Ariz.

“We are under a lot of duress,” said Kennett. “It has been quite painful.” So much so, that team members call their critics’ work “biased,” “nonsense” and “screwed up.”

Such intransigence has been seen before in other cases of grand scientific claims. Sometimes those theories were based on data irregularities. Other times, the proponents succumbed to self-delusion. But typically, advocates become so invested in their ideas they can’t publicly acknowledge error.

A new look at the comet claim suggests all of these phenomena may be in play, apparently creating a peculiar bond of desperation as the theory came under increasing attack. Indeed, the team’s established scientists are so wedded to the theory they have opted to ignore the fact their colleague “Allen West” isn’t exactly who he says he is.

West is Allen Whitt — who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community.

West’s history — and new concerns about study results he was integrally involved in — raise intriguing questions about the veracity of the comet claim. His background is likely to create more doubts about the theory. And the controversy — because it involves the politically sensitive issue of a climate shift — is potentially more broadly damaging, authorities suggest.

“It does feed distrust in science,” says Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University and an international dean of climate research. “Those who don’t believe in human-produced global warming grab onto it.”

West is at the nexus of almost all the evidence for the original comet claims. His fieldwork is described in the 2006 book he authored with Firestone, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes.

To show the comet’s deadly plume, West collected various sediment samples from 25 archaeology sites across the United States. He used a magnet to find iron flecks reportedly from the comet, scooped up carbon spherules reflecting subsequent fires, and argued that high concentrations of such material at particular sedimentary levels supported their theory.

The team has argued a 4-kilometer comet tumbled into ice sheets 12,900 years ago, leading to the so-called Younger Dryas, when the temperature cooled for more than a thousand years.

The flying debris appeared to answer questions about the Clovis peoples’ disappearance that had defied prior explanation. The supposed remnants of the comet hadn’t received intense scrutiny by researchers previously probing sediments at archaeology sites. And water from melted ice flowing into the oceans could explain the precipitous temperature drop.

But all these claims have been sharply disputed in a series of scientific articles over the last 18 months. Examples include:

University of Wyoming archaeologist Todd Surovell and his colleagues couldn’t find increased magnetic spherules representing cosmic debris at seven Clovis sites. Nicholas Pinter and his colleagues at Southern Illinois University Carbondale argue the carbon spherules are organic residue of fungus or arthropod excrement. And Tyrone Daulton of Washington University in St. Louis and his colleagues reported that supposed nanodiamonds formed by the impact were misidentified.

Speaking of the various reports, Surovell said, “We all built a critical mass of data suggesting there was a serious problem.”

Now, Boslough and colleagues have conducted new analysis of purported comet debris samples that raises even more troubling credibility questions.

On March 25, Boslough reported that radio-carbon dating of a carbon spherule sample shows it is only about 200 years old — an “irregularity” that indicates is it not from the alleged 12,900-year-old impact time.

This means that a sample from a layer purporting to show a high concentration of spherules at the inception of the Younger Dryas actually only was about as old as the Declaration of Independence.

About two years ago, as his doubts on the theory were building, Boslough contacted West to secure carbon spherule samples for analysis. West sent him 16 spherules, purportedly from the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer at an archaeology site called Gainey in Michigan — a location with the highest spherule count of studied locations.

Boslough subsequently forwarded the unopened package of spherules to the National Science Foundation-funded radio-carbon laboratory at the University of Arizona in Tucson. There, a dating specialist randomly selected a spherule — the one ultimately found to be about 200 years old. Boslough reported these results at an American Geophysical Union conference in Santa Fe, N.M.

Afterward, Boslough said: “I don’t think there is any reason to accept what West reported. I have a serious problem with everything from him.”

Did someone salt a sediment layer to increase the spherule count? Or did the 200-year-old sample inadvertently get mixed in somehow? Boslough says he can’t provide an answer, but there was some form of “contamination.”

But an answer is needed, he said: “I wouldn’t sweep it under the rug.”

After his presentation, West wrote Boslough that he believed that the questioned sample somehow got mixed naturally over time into a lower sediment layer. Both Kennett and Firestone agreed.

But Vance Holliday, a University of Arizona archaeologist who has studied Clovis sites for 30 years, found this explanation nonsensical. Such mixing of spherules from different eras could invalidate any conclusion that higher spherule counts represented evidence of a comet impact.

“I suspect something very odd is going on,” adds Holliday, who also has become a critic of the comet theory.

After the theory was first announced in 2007 in Acapulco, Mexico, Holliday had attempted to collaborate with Kennett to test the idea. But Kennett effectively blocked publication of the study last year after the results didn’t support the comet theory.

And those results were blindly analyzed by an independent reviewer selected by Kennett himself. That independent reviewer was none other than Walter Alvarez — an esteemed University of California, Berkeley, geologist and son of Luis Alvarez, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who first proposed an asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico about 65 million years ago, wiping out the world’s dinosaurs and most life.

The Holliday-Kennett study has never been presented publicly. The results were obtained independent of the two authors. Holliday then agreed to discuss events; Kennett also answered questions about the study but didn’t reach the same conclusions as his colleague.

For decades, Holliday has studied a Clovis site at Lubbock Lake Landmark State Historical Park in Texas, just east of the original location where the Clovis people’s distinctive fluted projectile points were first discovered in New Mexico. After a visit there in the summer of 2007, Holliday examined sediments from an exposed section that included the signature of the inception of the Younger Dryas. He then took samples from six sedimentary layers within a 35-centimeter section encompassing the Younger Dryas.

The study then worked like this: Based on analyses of the layers, both Kennett and Holliday sent to Alvarez their predictions on which layer reflected the geochemical characteristics for the beginning of the Younger Dryas. But neither Kennett nor Alvarez knew the order of the sediment layers; not knowing this order would add credibility to their conclusions.

In a surprise, Kennett’s analysis included sedimentary counts for what he called nanodiamonds — which his group says were produced by the enormous energy from comet explosion.

Holliday accurately predicted what layer was associated with the Younger Dryas boundary. But Kennett did not. Kennett’s selected nanodiamond-rich layer was 25 centimeters above the Younger Dryas boundary — meaning it was about 1,000 years younger than the claimed impact time. To Alvarez, this indicated a comet-impact hypothesis was incorrect.

After considerable behind-the-scenes arguing, Holliday said, Kennett ultimately complained last summer that the study was “fundamentally flawed” and wouldn’t allow him to publish his results. Now, Kennett says, he is continuing to analyze the data.

“It is very peculiar,” Holliday said. “They propose an idea, a study contradicts it, then they criticize the scientists or the work.”

Both Kennett and Columbia’s Broecker, are elected members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Science; near age peers, they are also old friends. Years ago, Broecker noted, Kennett published seminal discoveries on ancient climate shifts by studying cores drilled deep into the ocean floor.

Speaking graciously of Kennett, Broecker lauded his friend’s early climate studies as extremely important. But when the comet theory came along, Broecker immediately was highly skeptical. Kennett repeatedly called him to lobby for the comet until Broecker cut him off saying he didn’t want to hear about the theory anymore.

“It is all wrong,” said Broecker, if not “very likely total nonsense. But he never gives up on an idea.”

Kennett seems fixated on the Younger Dryas, Broecker added, “He won’t listen to anyone. It’s almost like a religion to him.”

Acknowledging the dispute, Kennett said, “I know he thinks I’m wrong; maybe he’ll change his mind someday.”

About 20 years ago, Broecker noted Kennett had proposed a similarly wayward theory that a burst of methane from the ocean floor — sometimes called “a methane gun” — warmed the climate, ending the Younger Dyras.

“He pushed the methane-gun theory for years,” said Broecker. “He predicted an enormous methane peak would be reflected in ice-core records. But there wasn’t one; it was a ridiculous idea to begin with.”

Then he switched to the beginning of the Younger Dryas, Broecker added, “He was determined to make a splash; it blinded his judgment.”

Ironically, he may be making a different type of impact with his odd-couple collaboration with West.

West has no formal appointment at an academic institution. He has said he obtained a doctorate from a Bible college, but he won’t describe it further. Firestone said West has told him he has no scientific doctorate but is self-taught. West’s Arizona attorney refers to him in writing as: “A retired geophysicist who has had a long and distinguished career.”

In the early 1990s, a new-age business West was involved in Sedona, Ariz., failed, and his well-drilling company went bankrupt. Then he ran afoul of California law in small Mojave Desert towns in a scheme with two other men, with court records saying they collected fees up to $39,500 for questionable groundwater reports.

He originally was charged with two felonies for falsely representing himself as a state-licensed geologist but agreed to a no contest plea to a single misdemeanor of false advertising as part of plea bargain in which state records say he was fined $4,500. Two other men in the scam also were sanctioned.

Acknowledging he made a mistake, West has sought to downplay the 9-year-old conviction. And last September, after his impact theory colleagues learned of it, he went back to court in Victorville, Calif., convincing a judge to void the old plea.

After earlier denying any impropriety with his Younger Dryas work, West declined a recent interview request. Last month, he wrote a letter charging it was “highly prejudicial and distorted” to bring up his legal past in the context of his current studies. He is a member of “a group of two dozen dedicated scientists performing cutting-edge, although controversial, research,” he wrote.

Initially last year, Kennett was speechless when confronted with West’s history. He and Firestone learned of it because of this reporter’s questions. Since then, he has continued to collaborate and publish research with West. Within weeks of learning of West’s background, Kennett pushed for news coverage last September of an article contending nanodiamonds in Greenland supported their comet theory. But the article didn’t sway critics.

Today, Kennett won’t discuss West’s criminal past at all — saying West is “wonderful, an absolutely remarkable researcher.” Firestone acknowledges West “did some strange things” but continues to defend that his work is above reproach.

Among the theory’s critics, there are decidedly differing opinions.

“This is so far beyond the pale — outside of normal experiences in conducting science — you can’t ignore it,” Southern Illiois’ Pinter said. Asked if he would collaborate with West, he said, “I would run screaming away.”

And the three years and research dollars spent on the claim leave a bitter memory for some. “My response is not publishable,” said Pinter.

Some academic institution needs to thoroughly examine the issue and answer the obvious questions that abound, critics say. Several said they already would have reported the events to administrators at their respective universities.

UCSB is the most likely institution to conduct a review, since Kennett used an NSF grant there on comet studies. But this will mean questioning an esteemed faculty member — Kennett — who is seen as having helped put the campus on the international scientific map.

Among those who believe a formal inquiry should be initiated to determine if there was any misconduct is Jeffrey Severinghaus, an isotopic chemist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. An inquiry is the first level of such scrutiny; an investigation that could lead to sanctions would follow if the inquiry finds evidence of impropriety. Such probes have sniffed out questionable data from cases such as the rejected cold fusion claim and the false Korean assertion of cloning human embryos from stem cells.

“Wow,” said Severinghaus upon hearing of the latest developments in the comet theory, which he initially doubted because of his earlier ice-core studies. “It certainly sounds like there is sufficient evidence to justify an initial inquiry.”

Asked if he would seek such a move, he said, “Absolutely. It is really important to maintain the public trust in science. That means if there is a bad apple, it is rooted out and exposed.”

Bruce Hanley, UCSB’s director of research compliance, declined to be interviewed, although in an email he wrote that UCSB “is extremely interested in maintaining a high level of integrity” in research, and has a formal process for review of “unacceptable research practices.” Such a review is done confidentially.

Meanwhile, the next stop for the comet proponents’ road show is Bern, Switzerland. In July, they are scheduled to present research to a major international conference that studies the last 2.5 million years, the quaternary.

With many leading impact scientists in Europe equally skeptical of the theory, their welcome may be as icy as that period often was.

Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by platyhelminth » Tue May 17, 2011 10:58 am

allynh wrote:That's a good point. And you are right, in 49 pages we'd missed that. Well done.

In essence, as the planet grows it absorbs a larger charge which transmutes into more matter that grows the planet more, etc... At what point does it pop. HA!
Yes, in fact thats a important point that has not be talked about in previous posts. If it is the case the expansion rate should follow an exponential increase with time.
Like the croissance of a colony of bacteria, the more there is bacteria in the colony the more this colony is able to create bacteria. So the croissance of the colony is exponential with time. This is true as long as the bacteria colony get the nutriment needed.
(note thate bacterias reach a stationary phase when the available nutriment cannot support anymore the exponential growth)

For the planetary system, the nutriment might be galactic birkeland current and Z pinch aurora as said anaconda previously (see here ) . So if it is true we should have an exponential increase of size during history, and that is precisely what we have acording to Dr James Maxlow.
He talks about it in his conference : ... age#t=206s
But also in his website, see ... nics_2.pdf . He does consider this exponential evolution particularly at the part " What is causing the Earth to expand? " where he excludes some hypothesis due to their failing to explain the exponential rate of expantion:
Dr James Maxlow wrote:Secular reduction of the universal gravitation constant G. Such a decline of G was said to cause expansion through the release of elastic compressional energy throughout the Earth, and phase changes to lower densities in the mantle. Carey rejected this proposal as the main cause of expansion for three reasons: (a) formerly the surface gravity would have been unacceptably high, (b) the magnitude of expansion is probably too small, and (c) the arguments for such a reduction in G were considered not to indicate an exponential rate of increase in radius.
So ...
We will see if it is empirism versus dogmatism OR if it is just another battle between different dogmas.

Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by platyhelminth » Tue May 17, 2011 12:01 pm

Also, about elevation after earthquakes. Not only Growing earth theory predicts general earth radius increase, but it predicts mountain formation too. Watch this site they say in their part 8 " how continents get their mountains " . They explains that mountain formation is a tensile folding which is due to the change in earth curvature. James Maxlow talks about it too :
So ...
We will see if it is empirism versus dogmatism OR if it is just another battle between different dogmas.

Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by platyhelminth » Wed May 18, 2011 4:13 am

Nikola TESLA wrote:According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man's grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny
See : ... S%20VISION

Tesla talks of transformation of ether to matter and also of the opposite. he says we could control the size of the planet.
During Tesla times expanding earth was the only theory for continental drift, plate tectonics (the current mainsteam theory) was not even born.
Roberto Mantovani published expanding earth theories in 1889 and 1909, both articles were in french langage. see
So ...
We will see if it is empirism versus dogmatism OR if it is just another battle between different dogmas.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed May 18, 2011 11:45 am

The Tesla quote is deeply disturbing. I love it! Your graph above about bacteria growth combined with the Tesla quote is intriguing. They imply a series of questions.

- How big can a solid planet grow.

- What happens when the inflow of electricity driving that growth stops.

- Does "matter" need to be in a constant electrical field to keep from "dissolving" back into the aether.

The thing to remember is, that the gas giants and the solid planets grew like pearls in the Sun, then were expelled to balance the electrical load on the Sun. The planets have grown since that event. I do not think that a solid planet will grow into a gas giant. They are two separate paths of growth.

Plus, the planetary orbits are maintained by the electrical current flowing in the Sol System. Change that current coming in from the galaxy and you change the orbits. The Heliosphere grows and shrinks as that galactic current changes. Remove the galactic current and the solar system evaporates; the planets going their separate ways as a gravity only system tosses them everywhere. Fun stuff!

BTW, The chapter on Mantovani is great. That is another example of a discussion lost in the past because the various science texts were buried in libraries unavailable for search. I'm hoping that with time, and digitizing, much of that discussion will see the light of day once again.

If you come across more old texts like that, give a yell.


Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by platyhelminth » Wed May 18, 2011 12:12 pm

allynh wrote:The thing to remember is, that the gas giants and the solid planets grew like pearls in the Sun, then were expelled to balance the electrical load on the Sun. The planets have grown since that event. I do not think that a solid planet will grow into a gas giant. They are two separate paths of growth.
Well, why not ?
Hydrothermal sources, located is sea depth, are constantly producing di-hydrogen and various other hydrogenated (and reduced molecules) on which depth sea life is able to grow.
Mainstream science think there is a recycling process : ... iagram.jpg . But in an growing earth view, hydrogen is constantly produced.

Wikipedia claims the uppermost layer of atmosphere has mostly hydrogen.
And that it is possible for particules to leave earth and go in deep space. (I don't know how EU theorists see the exosphere)
So the uppermost layer of atmosphere may have to renew its hydrogen, may be coming from inside the earth. This mean that if one day earth become big enough, it could maintain hydrogen in its atmosphere and become a gas giant.

After all in the EU model, the sun has the same composition than "rocky" planets :
Stars may not grow as fast as planets, because they would use energy in electromagnetic radiation instead of creating mass
So ...
We will see if it is empirism versus dogmatism OR if it is just another battle between different dogmas.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests