Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Ancient & Forbidden Knowledge / False History

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2014, 02:49 AM   #41
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhiba View Post
Don, Velociraptors were like totally made up man - like totally fictional

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/l...ociraptor.html


love the 'facts' on that page
Fact file

Pronounced
vel-OSS-ee-rap-tor
Meaning of name
quick plunderer

Teeth
lots of sharp, pointed teeth

Food
other animals

How it moved
on 2 legs

the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 02:51 AM   #42
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhiba View Post
Why would Earth have less gravity back in the day? Was there less land mass then?
apparently .. buddy also said, "300 million years ago, planet Earth was physically much smaller than today. "
apparently the planet is growing larger and heavier as we speak.
really, eh .. who knew?
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 02:54 AM   #43
pound
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6,466
Likes: 475 (261 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onenessbeing View Post
I've read that dinosaurs can still be found today in the Congo in central africa, but it's a place of no return. It's hidden and nobody gets out there alive.
I believe you're talking about "Mokele Mbembe". Very interesting:

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

Roy Mackal, the man interviewed in the video above, wrote a book about Mokele Mbembe. It looks like a good read:

__________________
"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." -- Carl Jung
"The educated person is one who knows how to find out what he does not know" -- George Simmel

Last edited by pound; 04-07-2014 at 02:59 AM.
pound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 02:59 AM   #44
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
apparently .. buddy also said, "300 million years ago, planet Earth was physically much smaller than today. "
apparently the planet is growing larger and heavier as we speak.
really, eh .. who knew?
i can actually believe that as the techtonic plates move they do expand the diameter and circumference of the Earth.

i remember seeing the expanding earth video a few years ago, it said how, if you reverse continental drift the continents all merge back into one and other and fit perfectly - i thought, at the time, that it was quite compelling, but i also think that it has been debunked - but still, i am a fan of that ethos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 04:58 PM   #45
hydeman11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Howdy folks,
I didn’t expect to come back, but I decided to come take a look at the responses left.

Don Coyote, you seem to be an expanding earth theorist. That was all well and good 60-70 years ago, but geology has moved beyond that hypothesis. But first, can we address your belief that a smaller Earth would equate to less gravity? Can you explain how that would work? If we assume the Earth has remained a stable mass (as in, has stayed the same mass), then making it smaller would decrease the distance between the mass and the object the mass is acting upon, increasing the effect of gravity.

Now, you can argue that as the Earth expanded, it grew in mass, but honestly, how would you break E=MC^2 so brazenly? In other words, where would that mass come from? Nowhere?

So, what does science say is responsible? Well, we can see that insects grew quite large… We can see that most of the Earth’s coal formed sometime in the Carboniferous (sidenote, now called Mississippian/Pennsylvanian). Coal is made of plant material. Bugs today cannot grow large because they respire through spiracles in their exoskeleton, so they bring oxygen from the air directly into their body, outside-inwards. Without lots of oxygen, bugs rot on the inside, as only the outermost tissues receive oxygen. What does this have to do with other organisms? Not sure entirely. More oxygen allows for organisms to grow larger, metabolize more efficiently, and more easily respire and get oxygen to their large bodies… This is likely a part of why the dinosaurs were large, but we must also consider other factors, such as natural selection and the paleoclimate, which would have been warmer 300mya.

Now then, Zhiba, plate movement causing expansion of the Earth’s diameter… Like I said previously (good transition, thanks. ), that would have been a fine hypothesis 60-70 years ago, but thanks to a better understanding of plate tectonics, it is unlikely.

Why? Subduction zones. Subduction zones are the active margin of a tectonic plate where one plate is being subducted beneath another. These zones are prone to earthquakes, volcanism, and mountain building (orogenic events), but it’s the earthquakes which are the most interesting part. Seismologists can actually measure the velocity of primary and secondary (seismic) waves created by these quakes to model the interior of the Earth. Using data obtained in the lab, seismologists know the velocity of seismic waves traveling through a specific medium (sediment, limestone, shale, sandstone, granite, magma, iron-nickel…). P-waves travel through liquids, whereas S-waves don’t, so they can even tell you where a liquid is in the subsurface. We can see evidence of these processes having a long (spanning the history of the Earth) geologic history. The evidence is preserved in the existence of ophiolite (bits of oceanic crust crushed onto passive margins) sequences and greenstone belts. Basically, petrologists can study the conditions by which minerals in rocks must have been formed based on laboratory experiments at controlled pressures, temperatures, and fluid presences. Subduction zones are the kind of place where one might expect to find a relatively low temperature, moderately high pressure metamorphism, which is exactly the kind of conditions where they find the minerals found in ophiolites and such greenstone sequences…

However, yes! Supercontinents. If you trace back the movement of the continents, they actually formed the supercontinent of Pangaea. And before that, there is evidence of other supercontinents. So, one point correct.

Last edited by hydeman11; 05-07-2014 at 04:59 PM.
hydeman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:31 PM   #46
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
apparently .. buddy also said, "300 million years ago, planet Earth was physically much smaller than today. "
apparently the planet is growing larger and heavier as we speak.
really, eh .. who knew?
Well, i suppose that over millions of years, we see continual build up of plant material which through applied pressure creates fossilised material - which would create further mass - i'm not sure how much mass a single tree creates over and above the mineral content that it absorbs etc though.
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:54 PM   #47
bertieboggins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lundun
Posts: 510
Likes: 44 (29 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhiba View Post
Well, i suppose that over millions of years, we see continual build up of plant material which through applied pressure creates fossilised material - which would create further mass - i'm not sure how much mass a single tree creates over and above the mineral content that it absorbs etc though.
Trees don't create mass as such. They move mass from one place to another, and from one form to another. At least according to scientific theory.

In a simplistic explanation they convert the gaseous form of carbon found in carbon dioxide (in the air) into a solid form (ie wood). The mass always existed, just in a less dense form.
bertieboggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 10:59 PM   #48
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
Trees don't create mass as such. They move mass from one place to another, and from one form to another. At least according to scientific theory.

In a simplistic explanation they convert the gaseous form of carbon found in carbon dioxide (in the air) into a solid form (ie wood). The mass always existed, just in a less dense form.


That's what i meant to say - i just wish my brain would work as well as yours
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:05 PM   #49
bertieboggins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lundun
Posts: 510
Likes: 44 (29 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhiba View Post


That's what i meant to say - i just wish my brain would work as well as yours
Careful what you wish for my brain is a blessing and a curse!

The point I'm trying to make is that the overall mass of the Earth could not change unless some extra mass from outside of the Earth was somehow added to it.

At least according to current scientific theory (which is quite well supported by the empirical evidence).
bertieboggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:09 PM   #50
bertieboggins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lundun
Posts: 510
Likes: 44 (29 Posts)
Default

However the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe is continuously expanding, which would suggest that the Earth is bigger today than it used to be, but so is everything else.

Being bigger does not mean it has more mass though. It would be less dense.

Think of a balloon.

Does the rubber weigh more when inflated (and bigger) than when burst (and smaller)?

Of course the Big Bang theory is actually bollocks.

Last edited by bertieboggins; 05-07-2014 at 11:13 PM.
bertieboggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:28 PM   #51
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

The idea of a whales ribs collapsing under its own body weight when they beach after a few minutes - very bizarre

i bet when they leap up out of the water they think 'not doing that again, it hurts like hell...'

the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:30 PM   #52
dentedarthur
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 10,983
Likes: 21 (21 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
Of course the Big Bang theory is actually bollocks.
Fanny!
dentedarthur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:47 PM   #53
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
However the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe is continuously expanding, which would suggest that the Earth is bigger today than it used to be, but so is everything else.
not at all ..
the universe is expanding.
this does not mean that objects are getting larger, but are merely moving further apart.
when we 'break' the balls on a pool table, they move away from each other, but remain the same size.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:53 PM   #54
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
not at all ..
the universe is expanding.
this does not mean that objects are getting larger, but are merely moving further apart.
when we 'break' the balls on a pool table, they move away from each other, but remain the same size.
Only when we take the triangle off
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:57 PM   #55
hydeman11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
However the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe is continuously expanding, which would suggest that the Earth is bigger today than it used to be, but so is everything else.

Being bigger does not mean it has more mass though. It would be less dense.

Think of a balloon.

Does the rubber weigh more when inflated (and bigger) than when burst (and smaller)?

Of course the Big Bang theory is actually bollocks.
Howdy,

Although bikerdruid has been correct (and addressed issues I would have, had he/she not), even if your hypotheses were true, I've already addressed the issue of distance affecting gravitational force. To reiterate, if you keep the same mass (Earth has the most mass at the core, as demonstrable by seismic studies... and even gravitational ones) and increase the distance by expanding the Earth, you weaken the force acting upon an object. If you go backwards with this, then the force would actually be stronger, counter to your hypothesis.

Edit:
I suppose I just asserted that distance thing, so allow me to provide a demonstrable equation that relates force to mass and distance...
Force=[G(gravitational constant) x Mass(object1) x Mass(object2)]/Distance^2
That's Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Notice that distance is squared, meaning that the force of gravity is actually more dependent upon distances between objects than masses of the objects.

Last edited by hydeman11; 06-07-2014 at 12:07 AM.
hydeman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:58 PM   #56
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhiba View Post
Only when we take the triangle off
true story.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 05:06 AM   #57
fishin
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,241
Likes: 13 (12 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
Careful what you wish for my brain is a blessing and a curse!

The point I'm trying to make is that the overall mass of the Earth could not change unless some extra mass from outside of the Earth was somehow added to it.

At least according to current scientific theory (which is quite well supported by the empirical evidence).
The earth has grown through the years. The overall mass has changed. Current scientific theory is crap.
fishin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 05:33 AM   #58
hydeman11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishin View Post
The earth has grown through the years. The overall mass has changed. Current scientific theory is crap.
I agree that the mass has changed. Space dust, comets, meteors, bolides of other origins... All crash on Earth. Minor amounts of escaping atmosphere and lost metals in satellites and space crafts... and the fuels and payloads on the craft... This is one of the reasons why the Earth is not a closed system.

But expanding? Are you saying solid expansion? As in, bigger and remaining the same density? Where does that matter come from then? E=MC^2. Or are you saying inflating like a balloon? 'cause, oddly enough, the crust is mostly oxygen anyway. But based on the continued reliable velocites of seismic waves traveling through the crust and the mantle and the core (outer and inner), it doesn't seem to be expanding... At least is hasn't since those measurements have been started... As well as satellite orbits not changing... Well, scientific data can't convince a skeptic, I guess.
hydeman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 09:01 AM   #59
bertieboggins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lundun
Posts: 510
Likes: 44 (29 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
not at all ..
the universe is expanding.
this does not mean that objects are getting larger, but are merely moving further apart.
when we 'break' the balls on a pool table, they move away from each other, but remain the same size.
Are you sure about that?

Why would the objects that make up bigger objects not be moving further apart too?

Is the expansion selective?
bertieboggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 03:51 PM   #60
bikerdruid
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 27,115
Likes: 611 (379 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertieboggins View Post
Are you sure about that?

Why would the objects that make up bigger objects not be moving further apart too?

Is the expansion selective?
the further apart objects are, the easier they move away from each other.
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.