Are the planets growing?

[CTJG 1986]

Something odd just happened. This thread went from 45 pages to 48, from 672 posts to 719 posts, all since I last posted on 28 March, without adding anything at the end. That means something has been consolidated into the thread, which means everybody, including myself, needs to read through the thread from the start and see what has changed. Yikes.

The added posts are viewable on pages 7-10, from a thread titled "A German video about the expanding earth may show EU effect".

[allynh]

The added posts are viewable on pages 7-10, from a thread titled "A German video about the expanding earth may show EU effect".

HA! Neat. What other mysteries will be revealed. Thanks...

[allynh]

Here is another asteroid that is in the orbit of Earth.

Asteroid Stalks Earth in Weird Horseshoe-Shaped Orbit
http://www.livescience.com/13621-astero ... orbit.html

2010 SO16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_SO16

2010 SO16
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2010+SO16&orb=1

[allynh]

Here's more on the asteroids, showing all three.

How Earth “Plays Horseshoes” With Asteroids
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com ... asteroids/

How Earth “Plays Horseshoes” With Asteroids
by Robert J. Vanderbei

Recently NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) space telescope discovered an interesting asteroid named 2010 SO16.

The asteroid is in a so-called “horseshoe” orbit with respect to Earth. Essentially that means the asteroid is in the same orbit as Earth but, at the moment, it trails us in our yearlong journey around the sun by about two weeks.

The asteroid’s center of mass is currently slightly closer to the sun than our center of mass here on Earth. Hence it is going around the sun slightly faster than we are.

In other words, 2010 SO16 is catching up to us.

Luckily, the asteroid will not hit us. Instead, as it nears us, the space rock will start to feel the gravitational attraction of Earth. Since we are ahead of it, we will accelerate it forward.

This would seem bad, but what happens is that the asteroid will get slung to a higher orbit and actually start going slower. This is a weird, counter-intuitive feature of the laws of gravity: Hit the accelerator and you end up going slower—but in a higher orbit, so at least something was gained!

Asteroid 2010 SO16 is doing this transition right about now and will soon be in a higher, slower orbit.

In about 175 years we will be the ones approaching from behind, as by then we will have almost lapped the asteroid.

At that time the dynamic will work in the opposite manner: The asteroid will start to feel the Earth tugging on it from behind. This will cause the asteroid to decelerate, and it will drop back to the original, lower orbit and return to its faster pace.

In total, the asteroid’s orbital path traces a horseshoe shape relative to Earth. This process is stable and can continue indefinitely.

(Related: “Planets Found With Crisscross Orbits—A First.”)

There are a few other previously known asteroids that exhibit similar interesting orbits relative to Earth. One is called Cruithne, and another is called 2002 AA29.

I’ve constructed an animation of these three asteroids as they orbit the sun using a JAVA applet.

To run it, you will need to install Sun Microsystem’s JAVA on your computer. Installation instructions can be found here and instructions on how to enable JAVA in your favorite browser can be found here.

Once that’s squared away, click here to view the horseshoe-orbits animation.

In addition to the asteroids, the animation shows the inner planets Venus, Earth, and Mars—as well as our moon and the outer planet Jupiter.

By default, Earth is at the center of the animation window and the sun is held fixed directly to its left. To hold the sun and Earth fixed means that our “point of view” is counter-rotating.

Objects closer to the sun (such as Venus) orbit faster and therefore appear to move counterclockwise around the sun. Objects farther from the sun (such as Mars) orbit more slowly and therefore appear to move in a clockwise fashion.

If you change “center on” from 2 to 0, then the sun will be placed at the center of the window, counter-rotation is disabled, and all bodies will move counterclockwise.

By default, the animation shows where the bodies are at the time shown in the bottom left corner of the animation window. To see orbital trails, click “Show Trails.”

—Screen grab by Robert J. Vanderbei

You will notice that the orbits have a rather “loopy” appearance. This is because the planets’ orbits about the sun are not perfect circles—they are ellipses.

We are holding Earth fixed in the center. The fact that its orbit is elliptical is seen in the fact that the sun wobbles slightly.

Venus’s orbit is nearly circular. The smearing of the green Venusian trails is a combination of both Venus’s and Earth’s ellipticity.

Mars, on the other hand, has a much more elliptical orbit, which is clearly illustrated by the “fatness” of the red trail.

Note that Cruithne’s orbit is sometimes closer to the sun than Venus’s and is sometime farther from the sun than Mars’s. Yet on average its distance from the sun is almost the same as Earth’s, and so it classifies as an Earth-coorbital asteroid.

Asteroids 2002 AA29 and 2010 SO16 have paths that are much more like the idealized “horseshoe” orbit described above.

You can speed up the animation by giving a larger “warp” value. The “+” and “-” buttons also allow you to zoom in and out, respectively.

If you zoom in by clicking “+” a number of times (with Earth at the center by default), you will be able to see the moon orbiting Earth. If you zoom out with a few clicks on “-” you will find Jupiter—it is just too far from the sun to be seen at the default zoom level.

Once you have JAVA installed and have explored the horseshoe orbits, you might want to check out several other orbital animations I have assembled.

Robert J. Vanderbei is chair of the Operations Research and Financial Engineering department at Princeton University and co-author of the National Geographic book Sizing Up the Universe. Vanderbei has been an astrophotographer since 1999, and he regularly posts new images on his astro gallery website.

This is the link to the animation.

The Earth, Moon with Sun, Venus, Mars and Three Interesting Asteroids
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/ast ... bital.html

Once the page is loaded you can "save as" from your browser and keep a copy on your disk. Be sure to select "webarchive" when you save the page to have a complete copy. Open the archive up from your drive to make sure you actually saved it.

He has other simulations at:

Vanderbei's N-Body Page
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/ast ... nBody.html

This is the JPL article.

WISE Mission Spots 'Horseshoe' Asteroid
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?r ... e_2011-112

This is from the Armagh Observatory.

Astronomers Find Newly Discovered Asteroid is Earth's Companion
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/2011/aac_hor ... orbit.html

This is all fun stuff.

[allynh]

Here is another great article that dances around the impossibility of dinosaurs living on a one gravity Earth.

In Dinosaur Science, Size Is Just the Beginning
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/ ... eview.html

In Dinosaur Science, Size Is Just the Beginning

Before entering the fascinating new exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History, “The World’s Largest Dinosaurs,” which opens on Saturday, walk through the Hall of Saurischian Dinosaurs where the composite skeleton of the Apatosaurus reigns, the core of its 140-million-year-old frame seeming almost incidental to its stupendously sweeping neck and tail. The weighty immensity of these fossilized bones once earned this creature — one of the largest to have plodded the planet — the name of thunder lizard (Brontosaurus).

But over the last generation, we have been living through a revolution in paleontology. The primal force wielded by such skeletal monsters, portrayed in their very names (like Triceratops: three-horned face), has been superseded. Bones, scales and armor are now emphasized less than possibilities of feathers, color and flesh. Birds, not brutish reptilian creatures, are now more often seen as dinosaurs’ closest relations.

In one exhibition at this museum a few years ago, about new discoveries in paleontology, it almost seemed as if dinosaurs’ macho-like archetype had shifted and that these former master hunters of alien prehistoric landscapes were becoming domesticated. And while the new show, devoted to Apatosaurus’s group — long-necked herbivores known as sauropods — might have once evoked a thunderous natural world, red in tooth and claw, now it ushers us into an elegant conceptual terrain, revealing how a field that might have once been vulnerable to fossilization is redefining itself.

In fact, don’t go into the exhibition expecting to view anything like what you see in the museum’s renowned dinosaur halls. There are some specimens here — a six-foot-tall femur of a Camarasaurus, sauropod vertebrae, fossils of skin impressions — yet the focus is not on artifacts but on how these creatures’ bodies worked. What is crucial is not bones but biology.

We don’t look at skeletons, but rather at models and re-creations, and read hypotheses about parts of these creatures that have never been found and never will be: their stomachs, brains, hearts and lungs. How did sauropods eat and digest? What was their circulatory system like and how fast did their hearts beat? How did they breathe and what were their lungs like?

These are intriguing questions because sauropods have been among the most successful land creatures ever; their remains have been found, we learn, on all seven continents in sediments that range over 140 million years. They were also enormous.

When you enter the exhibition, you are led into a hint of a forest primeval into which protrudes a model neck and head of an Argentinosaurus, a dinosaur that, the text tells us, is “currently considered the world’s largest.” Around 95 million years ago, such creatures could weigh 90 tons; the narrowest part of its leg might be about four feet around, and it could be 130 feet long. The main gallery space is dominated by a model of a comparatively miniature species: a 60-foot-long Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis based on a specimen found in China, its midsection serving as a giant movie screen presenting a survey of recent hypotheses about sauropods and their biological processes.

Mark A. Norell, the chairman of the museum’s division of paleontology, was joined in curating the exhibition by P. Martin Sander from the University of Bonn in Germany, who for the last seven years has led a team of German and Swiss scientists, including specialists in nutrition, biomechanics and paleontology. They examined the biology behind the size of sauropods. (Their papers have just been published in “Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: Understanding the Life of Giants.”) The show is a masterly distillation of their findings.

Size, we learn, is accompanied by some distinctive biological tendencies. The exhibition gives some sense of the range in size that exists even among related animals, extending in birds, for example, from the tiny bee hummingbird to the now extinct 880-pound elephant bird of Madagascar. Differences in size are associated with differences in biological processes. Generally bigger animals have slower heart rates; smaller animals breathe faster; bigger animals live longer; small animals produce more offspring.

But the heavier an animal becomes, the larger must be its weight-bearing bones, and the larger such bones are, the heavier they become. Size and weight eventually reach limits, though they lie far beyond contemporary human experience: a replica of a 15-foot-tall Supersaurus hind leg makes a nearby human skeleton seem like a Tinkertoy. A half-foot-long titan beetle here — large enough to inspire creepy sensations — is, we learn, about as large as a beetle can grow because that insect’s cells receive oxygen not through a circulatory system but through diffusion, which becomes more difficult with an increase in size.

In the case of plant-eating sauropods, there was a clear advantage to a long neck (and a light head): we are shown just how much more food becomes available with incrementally longer necks, and how much, too, such necks lessen the need to lug one’s tonnage around from tree to tree. The exhibition points out that an African elephant has to eat 18 hours a day to maintain itself. A sauropod, which could be 10 times the size of an elephant and might require 100,000 calories a day, would have had to devour more and, we read, “get as much down their throats as possible, as fast as they could.”

A 5.5-foot cube filled with foliage here shows the extent of a day’s dining (it would have weighed 1,150 pounds). Chewing would have wasted time, and their jaws suggest that sauropods, like Galápagos tortoises, probably swallowed without chewing; their digestive system may have had a fermentation area, where food could be slowly digested for up to two weeks.

Each aspect of a sauropod poses a kind of physiological puzzle: What size heart could pump enough blood to reach past the elongated neck? What kind of respiration system could maintain a high enough level of oxygen over such a wide expanse? Researchers looked at living animals that might provide biological parallels. Like birds and crocodiles, they propose, sauropods may have had lungs where air movement and gas exchange take place in different areas, delivering oxygen with less effort; CT scans of sauropod bones also reveal air spaces that resemble the hollows in birds’ bones that function as part of the avian respiratory system.

There are also ways that sauropods differ from any known land creature. How could newly hatched sauropods gain the weight and size to reach 90-ton maturity in 23 years? They might have doubled their weight in 5 days and quadrupled it in 12 (something that takes a human infant two and a half years). Some species of sauropod gained about 3,500 pounds a year during adolescence.

Each station in this show deals with a different aspect of the sauropod’s biological life. And all of this is teased out from the spare evidence of fossilized bones, and from analogies with known creatures. There are also “interactive” aspects to these displays, which may interest some visitors: you can pull levers to get a sense of the force required to pump blood; you can look at a kind of zoetrope to see animated images of how such creatures might have walked.

But what is so successful about this exhibition is not found in such installations, but in the way it treats scientific ideas. The show is really a demonstration of deduction, yet nothing about it is abstract or arcane. Its panels are crisp and clear. And they show contemporary paleontology to be an adventurous conceptual enterprise.

This makes the final gallery in which visitors (children, most likely) can pretend to use “tools” to clear aside “dirt” and excavate in a “dig pit” in Wyoming — not unlike the pit where the museum’s Apatosaurus was found at the end of the 19th century — a bit pointless. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of exploration taking place in the exhibition. Perhaps the show was deemed too speculative and this dig pit was meant to remind younger visitors of the profession that lay behind such insights. Instead, it seems a kind of conceptual throwback, reminding me not of the scientists’ labors, but of the images I grew up with: thunder lizards stomping through marsh lands, holding carnivores at bay with their sweeping tails and imposing size.

In the new paleontology, the thunder lizard is gone. The external image of the sauropod is as pastoral as that of a giraffe grazing in the treetops. The thunder is biological.

“The World’s Largest Dinosaurs” runs from Saturday through Jan. 2 at the American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street; amnh.org

The book he mentions is here.

Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs
Understanding the Life of Giants
Edited by Nicole Klein, Kristian Remes, Carole T. Gee, and P. Martin Sander
http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/ ... _id=317633

Exploring the mysteries of gigantism in the largest land creature that ever lived
"Provide[s] much new information on the biology of Sauropod dinosaurs; information extrapolated from studies of extant animals and from unique, new methodologies for examining fossil material." —Virginia Tidwell, Denver Museum of Nature and Science

Sauropods, those lumbering plant-eating dinosaurs, possessed bodies that seem to defy every natural law. What were these creatures like as living animals and how could they reach such an enormous size? Working groups in Germany and Switzerland representing disciplines ranging from engineering and materials science to animal nutrition and paleontology went in search of the answers to these questions. Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs reports on the current state of the groups' research. Covering nutrition, physiology, skeletal structure and body plans, and growth, this volume provides the most up-to-date knowledge about the biology of these giant dinosaurs.

I haven't bought the book yet, but the cover speaks to the impossibility of these creatures in a one gravity field. Look at the image of the sauropod beside the elephant.

The elephant is at the limit of it's size, yet they have the sauropod calmly standing on two legs. This is worse than not talking about the elephant in the room. HA!

[D_Archer]

Hi allynh,

The size of the dinosaurs can ben explained without less gravity, it is not really an argument anymore to use in favour of a growing earth (or not needed).

Tensegrity can explain it, also the fact that dinosaur bones can be pneumatic*. There is an old thread on it started by Junglelord > http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 44&start=0

Regards,
Daniel


*http://courses.washington.edu/biomechs/ ... odNeck.pdf

[allynh]

Been there, done that, earlier on the the thread. Doesn't work. Sorry.

That brings up the great new TED video.

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz ... wrong.html

[Aardwolf]

And the mainstream answer is surmising the bones are lighter, and therefore weaker, and this make huge creatures possible?

Pneumaticity is quite common in vertebrates. It's obviously natures way to reduce weight where bone is not required to support excess weight or require excess strength. Birds and Pterosaurs obviously for flight. Elephant and crocodile skulls for weight reduction. Sauropod necks because it mostly is only needed to support it's own weight and the weight of the bone, muscle and head above. There is very little additional flesh weight in the neck and head. The legs and main skeletal structure were solid weight bearing bones and this is where the strength is important as this is what supports the whole weight of the creature and needs to provide excess strength for running, fighting, carrying etc. Pneumaticity isn't found here nor would it be useful.

Pneumaticity is not the answer science wants it to be, it's just a common way of nature reducing weight where added strength isn't necessary, because they refuse to see the single, obvious, Occam's Razor solution to all the size problems; reduced gravity. Giganticism is now absent in every species class. That not a conincidence. If pneumaticity and tensengrity were the answer then we would still have gigantic examples extant now. They would certainly be the most dominant. But they dont exist because they physically cant exist and there's only one common reason; weight.

It's quite tiresome reading papers from these experts trying to fathom ways where respiratory problems or vascular problems need to solved by for example immersing (obviously land based creatures) in water, or saying they (creatures with immense wing span) cant fly, or that 90 ton creatures have pneumatic bones, which at most can only reduce overall weight by a few percent as 80%+ is muscle, organs and flesh. These creatures are not problems for science, they work in exactly the way creatures function now. Unfortunatlely they have been indoctrinated by a fixed size earth so cannot (or refuse to) see the obvious answer.

For me this is point that makes a growing Earth undeniable. It's the very simple single answer to all of the megafauna problems as well as supporting the continental matching and young ocean floor, supporting abiotic oil, deep bore free hydrogen and other anomalies. Problems that currently in the mainstream all need different, unique and competing answers to solve. And in my opinion all answered by an Electric Universe/Sun converting energy to matter deep within planetary bodies.

[sureshbansal342]

And the mainstream answer is surmising the bones are lighter, and therefore weaker, and this make huge creatures possible?

Pneumaticity is quite common in vertebrates. It's obviously natures way to reduce weight where bone is not required to support excess weight or require excess strength. Birds and Pterosaurs obviously for flight. Elephant and crocodile skulls for weight reduction. Sauropod necks because it mostly is only needed to support it's own weight and the weight of the bone, muscle and head above. There is very little additional flesh weight in the neck and head. The legs and main skeletal structure were solid weight bearing bones and this is where the strength is important as this is what supports the whole weight of the creature and needs to provide excess strength for running, fighting, carrying etc. Pneumaticity isn't found here nor would it be useful.

Pneumaticity is not the answer science wants it to be, it's just a common way of nature reducing weight where added strength isn't necessary, because they refuse to see the single, obvious, Occam's Razor solution to all the size problems; reduced gravity. Giganticism is now absent in every species class. That not a conincidence. If pneumaticity and tensengrity were the answer then we would still have gigantic examples extant now. They would certainly be the most dominant. But they dont exist because they physically cant exist and there's only one common reason; weight.

It's quite tiresome reading papers from these experts trying to fathom ways where respiratory problems or vascular problems need to solved by for example immersing (obviously land based creatures) in water, or saying they (creatures with immense wing span) cant fly, or that 90 ton creatures have pneumatic bones, which at most can only reduce overall weight by a few percent as 80%+ is muscle, organs and flesh. These creatures are not problems for science, they work in exactly the way creatures function now. Unfortunatlely they have been indoctrinated by a fixed size earth so cannot (or refuse to) see the obvious answer.

For me this is point that makes a growing Earth undeniable. It's the very simple single answer to all of the megafauna problems as well as supporting the continental matching and young ocean floor, supporting abiotic oil, deep bore free hydrogen and other anomalies. Problems that currently in the mainstream all need different, unique and competing answers to solve. And in my opinion all answered by an Electric Universe/Sun converting energy to matter deep within planetary bodies.

if we say earth itself is a living organism thus growing and expanding and has been germinated from meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (main properties of seed). one planet is a result of one meteoroid. only . what is the problem ?

[Aardwolf]

if we say earth itself is a living organism thus growing and expanding and has been germinated from meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (main properties of seed). one planet is a result of one meteoroid. only . what is the problem ?

Not a problem as such but difficult to prove I suspect. Also, I'm not sure where your theory fits into the EU, although I can see the effect is pretty much in line with GET.

Causation is of course the stumbling block but for the moment that I suspect will stay theoretical. GET predated plate tectonics and if the EU had been established prior to plate tectonics being theorised I suspect GET would have been the predominant mainstream theory now.

[D_Archer]

Been there, done that, earlier on the the thread. Doesn't work. Sorry.

That brings up the great new TED video.

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz ... wrong.html

Thx allynh and Aardwolf.

I do like to be right all the time but sometimes i just have to face reality and admit i glanced over an issue too quickly and jumped to conclusions.

Regards,
Daniel

[sureshbansal342]

if we say earth itself is a living organism thus growing and expanding and has been germinated from meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (main properties of seed). one planet is a result of one meteoroid. only . what is the problem ?

Not a problem as such but difficult to prove I suspect. Also, I'm not sure where your theory fits into the EU, although I can see the effect is pretty much in line with GET.

Causation is of course the stumbling block but for the moment that I suspect will stay theoretical. GET predated plate tectonics and if the EU had been established prior to plate tectonics being theorised I suspect GET would have been the predominant mainstream theory now.

it can be proved.

[allynh]

Here is another fun article of animals that are not possible today in our one gravity Earth.

Mammoths and Mastodons: All American Monsters
A mammoth discovery in 1705 sparked a fossil craze and gave the young United States a symbol of national might
By Richard Conniff
Smithsonian magazine, April 2010

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... sters.html

In the blue shadows after dawn, the low hills in this stretch of South Dakota can look like a line of elephants trudging toward some distant water hole. It’s a geologic echo of the great herds of Columbian mammoths that used to wander here. They were like African elephants, only bigger. “A full-grown adult weighed ten tons. That’s as much as a school bus,” a guide tells the tourists on a sidewalk at the Mammoth Site, a paleontological dig and museum in the town of Hot Springs. She points out a set of brick-size teeth with corrugated surfaces like the soles of running shoes. With them, a mammoth ate 400 pounds of grasses and sedges a day.

Highlight is mine. HA!

[sureshbansal342]

if we say earth itself is a living organism thus growing and expanding and has been germinated from meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (main properties of seed). one planet is a result of one meteoroid. only . what is the problem ?

Not a problem as such but difficult to prove I suspect. Also, I'm not sure where your theory fits into the EU, although I can see the effect is pretty much in line with GET.

Causation is of course the stumbling block but for the moment that I suspect will stay theoretical. GET predated plate tectonics and if the EU had been established prior to plate tectonics being theorised I suspect GET would have been the predominant mainstream theory now.

please observe the other supporting evidences . putting all together you can conclude it earth is a living organism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hnq87afXWI
one more strong and scientific point is earth is producing crude oil (mixture of organic compound linked with living organism) . any living organism can produce this type of material only same as oil in bark.

[601L1n9FR09]

Has anyone mentioned that the same force required for fission (is it to increase surface area in response to electrical stress?) may be what might make planets grow? Something like that anyway. I looked but 49 pages here I might have missed it.

Jay.