Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Messenger, never Messaged
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Messenger, never Messaged
Posted: 2/3/2014 10:26:24 AM
Re Otto Bonn:
----"I'd say change your listed body type to average, thin or athletic, whichever is the most accurate."

Few extra pounds is the most honest answer to myself, I may easily pass for average or athletic, but I would prefer to deserve that status by getting my weight into that BMI range.

---"Look up your listing in the site's Username Search. This is what women will see first. Tailor your headline and first paragraph to say something that will really interest the reader.

Changed Headline to "New Beginnings" … sounded a bit more 'catchy'

---"would be something that most will assume is the case, so there's no real need to mention it, and definitely don't waste the space that's used in your profile's search listing with anything similar."

Removed

---"Consider removing the Mail Settings about Intimate Encounters as those options are not available any longer, though you may not be able to due to recent site changes. Perhaps if you were to change any of the remaining Mail Settings or just click on Update Mail Settings, that might clear the now obsolete options."

Updated

---"Are there many new users in your area? That would help you get new messages since your profile has been around for a while. If you are willing to travel, you can change your postal code in Edit Profile to a different location, but leave your correct city and province listed. This will make your profile show up in searches for the new postal code. That ought to get you some new exposure."

Yah… lots of people around here, looking for someone local, but excellent tip.

Will follow up with others later… sorry out of time again.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Messenger, never Messaged
Posted: 2/2/2014 10:31:54 AM
re Mark_it_up:
-----"Get a sex change. That's really the only way to start receiving initial messages. As a guy you have to do all the chasing around here."

Resounding No

Re Ainen:
-----"Few extra pounds? Not unless you've gained a lot of weight since your Feb 2013 pictures."

I'm 6'4" and portionable to that hight. I should weigh between 220 - 240 pounds. I currently weigh closer to 280 pounds. Friends say I carry it really well as they say I don't look fat at all. BMI says I'm morbidly obese… not really sure about that one, but I'll go with 'few extra pounds as being accurate.

-----"Lots of negative wording; you often describe yourself as what you're not."

Can you please be more descriptive on examples?

-----"With profession and personality both photographer, your pics better be good!"

Funny story… Yes I am a professional photographer, so I went out and did up some of my own professional photos of myself for my dating profile. I went on several meets where I was flat out accused of not looking like my photos and miss representing myself. So I said screw this… did a whack load of crap selfies and posted the ones you see now. The last several dates, the women have been commenting that I look exactly like photos… so… if someone is interested enough to see what I can do photography wise, I'll show them my portfolio :)

Will follow up with Otto, Ouija and Literate a bit later, sorry out of time… but I'm seeing some great changes to make in otto's post. Thank you all!
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Messenger, never Messaged
Posted: 2/1/2014 11:59:30 PM
Thank you LiterateHiker

I've taken your advise and changed out several of the images with ones taken outside and bigger smiles.

I would like to think I already met the rest of your critique unless you could please be more specific. Is my spelling and grammar that bad?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Messenger, never Messaged
Posted: 2/1/2014 10:37:46 PM
Hello all

I'm hoping for some elaborate pointers on what I can do to make my profile more appealing to message and initiate conversations with. Hoping you can drop some ideas on me to work with.

Thank you!
Cheers

James
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Am I really that ugly?
Posted: 2/20/2013 9:57:37 PM

Average reply rate is 3% apparently. So if you send out 100 messages, expect to get 3 back.


Yup!

If you see a profile that catches your eye, send out a friendly Hello, maybe a comment or question about one of their interests. If you get a response, read through their profile and get into more about learning about them and telling them a bit more about yourself. Don't overshoot your hello with your life story, their's no point if they look at your profile pictures and delete your letter without even reading it. Some people are judgmental like that... they are better off finding someone equally judgmental.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 2/20/2013 7:35:39 PM
Yah, pretty much what I was thinking.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 2/20/2013 3:00:37 PM
Thanks Ouija!... there has been a lot of debate about children in PoF profiles. The reason I have 1 picture up with me and her is to avoid conversations like one I had one night on the phone. Someone was asking me about my average week and when I brought up my daughter the conversation quickly shifted to 'YOU HAVE A KID?' ... So... the picture seems to insure that I won't hear piss all from all the children haters out there.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 2/20/2013 12:36:28 PM
-------------------------------

New profile, Dated Pictures as of Feb 20, 2013

Feedback please...
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Drunk Fishers
Posted: 1/25/2013 6:02:58 PM
Anyone else get messages from people that clearly have been drinking at home? You try to talk to them again the next day and nothing. It's almost like, they liked the pictures more or something when they where out of it. So glad I don't go out to the pubs and bars to meet people.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/25/2013 5:57:37 PM

You aren't big


... Nicest compliment I've had in years :)

Never stop being awesome Ouiga2013, glad you like my new profile :)
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Is the any good women in Victoria???
Posted: 1/25/2013 5:45:54 PM
It's the daughter comment in your profile... it sends women screaming for the hills. The good thing is, this cuts down on all the crap you really wouldn't want to deal with. The ones that send you messages or take an interest in you, you know are genuine.

You remind me a little of myself, I would put money down that you would be an awesome guy for any women that finds you :)
 Light storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/25/2013 11:50:52 AM
/bump

(Think it must still be pretty boring)
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/24/2013 11:47:36 PM
Attempt 3...

First profile was over the top cheesy
2nd Profile was flat out boring

This new one I hope is a good mixture of the pair

Please... review away... I take constructive criticism to heart.

I've also updated the image main and switch hair colour to 'mixed'
 light storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/23/2013 5:15:59 AM
Oh, I hope I didn't go from needs work to to boring to review :(
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/22/2013 9:29:28 PM
Hey now... I'm a photographer as I like taking them... not being taken :)

- axed oldest pictures
- axed car picture
- put in at least one Jan 2013 full headshot

Taken your advice and just decided to run with the write up in a totally different direction... please let me know what you think.
--------------------
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Please help me out!
Posted: 1/15/2013 12:21:51 AM
Not getting many replies on PoF or Vow. Please tell me what people are thinking, thanks everyone.

...

Okay, apparently I didn't type enough to allow my call for help to be posted. So, why I wrote my topic the way I did. I've read a lot of accounts, and many of them are boring. I wanted to liven mine up with a bit of personality.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 715 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/2/2011 12:20:06 AM
Awe, people are discussing the Expanding Earth again :) If anyone is interested in checking out the conversation I've been involved in... it's located here...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/expanding-earth-do-the-continents-wind-back-to-a-sphere-t8539.html

It involves several experts on both sides...

Neal Adams is also there, however he seems to have his own ideas about the whole thing.





 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Question about Saturn
Posted: 10/23/2011 11:44:55 AM
When you really think about it, isn't our entire solar system just rings around a star :)
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 9/28/2011 9:50:05 AM
I love all the doubt... "We 'think'" and "We are not sure"... I think when you step up to the plate using the most technically advanced machine in the history of Mankind, you should own the confidence to step up to the plate and state proudly new findings.

Regardless if the measuring system is wrong, or light speed was broken, or some alternate plane was reached effecting in short cuts that appear light speed breaking, the news is truly revolutionary. People should be a little more "Were awesome" and a little less "Were scared of what your going to say"

I still believe there are more un answered questions about the universe and it's laws then we think we already know.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 6/7/2011 1:38:20 PM
Troll (Internet); Someone who randomly posts inconsistent comments that are often off-topic on a discussion forum to provoke readers into off topic emotional responses.

Creationist; often religious belief that life and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.


Oh, and people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones!!!!


Definition: You should not criticize other people for bad qualities in their character that you have yourself.

Another quote by american proverbs is "Practice what you preach"
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 6/6/2011 7:34:55 AM
Re: asarlai


I wasnt talking "miraculous", unless you think putting a camera in someone's eye socket and connecting it to the brain a miracle.


You get that idea from some popular TV show, funny thing about those TV Shows, there not real.


When I speak of "the time of christ", its similar to "the time of aquarius" Kinda.


You speak of Noah... that predates the time of christ. The original scripted work of Moses or "law of Moses" was discovered during the time of King Josiah (641-609BC). If Moses was real, it's estimated that he lived 1300BC. The first 5 books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are all bases on the original teachings of Moses. Since those books are based on the accounts of what moses taught his followers, it's probably pretty same to assume that it's all large, steaming piles of bull #$%!. Even by his own proponents and writers, the man was an admitted self confessed murder and talked to plants... how much credibility can you award that?


The door being Earth's vagina, the window her anus.


...

Do the rice crispies talk to you in the morning?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Environmentalists at war!
Posted: 6/2/2011 10:16:42 PM
Golden rule never fails

Gold makes the rules, if land is sitting there untapped... Man will tap it.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 709 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 6/2/2011 5:05:37 PM

Expanding Earth should have the evidence that the earth was smaller in the past (which it doesn’t)


70% of the Earth Surface is less then 200 million years old. Hawaii isn't much older then the ocean floor around it. Tell me, is Hawii going to be subducted back down into the Earth when it reaches a subduction zone?


That is because you shouldn’t make assumptions! You work from observable phenomena then devise a testable hypothesis. If there was a phenomenon of the earth being seen to be expanding then we can come up with theories to support this…BUT WE DON’T! so no need for a theory!


Static Earth Radius is an assumption


Volcanoes do shut down…they are called extinct volcanoes…If the plates didn’t move around we would get 1 massive volcano in a thinner part of the crust which would be some 200 million years old by now and nearly 100 miles high. Luckily for us the plates move, get compressed and buckle so these volcanoes shut down.


The great Global Rift is 65,000km long and pretty much is 200 million years old. What was the global rift before... To bad there is 0 evidence of such, it would be nice to know what the ocean floor looked like 200 million years go. I do know that over the next 200 million years, we are likely to see more global rifts form as Africa breaks up the continent to open up Atlantic Ocean 2.0.


The operative word there is ‘flatten’ which is why the ‘expanding Earth idea’ must be wrong because mountains wouldn’t occur.... Gravity induced crustal flattening… where the hell! What does this even mean!


I've learned to try and not use Neal Adams video to prove a point, but here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vznUwLAq14


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021210073815.htm


In that research... you will find this paragraph

"...Grace is measuring Earth's gravity field with unprecedented accuracy. The mission will be able to help scientists track water movement on and beneath Earth's surface; track changes in ice sheets and in global sea level; study surface and deep ocean currents; and study changes in the solid Earth."

Grace is supposed to provide the most accurate measurements of the Earth to date. You think I can find that data, anywhere? Maybe you could point me at it please. The other Satellite I mentioned above has a correction factor on Centre of Mass by over 250mm. That means if it's off by 20mm a year (Estimated rate of expansion) it going to be corrected back to 0 as an error.


Exactly, this is why you cannot come up with this theory, simply because you do not have the observed phenomenon.


The ocean floor is less then 200 million years old
This is not a mystery, and it's something you can easily verify.


IF! You mean you don’t know, they why do you have a theory to support it?


The Evidence supports that the Earth has Expanded, doubled in size over the past 300 million years. How remain speculative at best.


How is Age evidence of expansion? Evidence for expansion would be a measurement.


In order to close the atlantic ocean based on age, you can run the clock back 10 million years and see how the land comes back together. You can do this all the way up to 200 million years. If this is done in the Atlantic, the same must also be true in the pacific, yet, this seems to be ignored under plate tectonics. There is no explanation of a rift that existed prior to 300 million years ago. There must have been one if the ocean made up 70% of the earth before Pangea broke up... where are the hawaiis of that ocean that was around for billions of years?


This is why God and its religion is not a theory…simply because we have not observed the phenomenon of a God, so it can only be a belief.


Neither of us belief in religion... make you a deal, I won't compare plate tectonics to religion if you don't compare expansion tectonics to religion. But, at least Plate Tectonics and Relgion both agree on a static Earth Radius. I mean... God made it that way, it would never have changed either right?


Are you telling me we have data to show the earth was x diameter, then when we had another measurement at a later date it was different? But we considered the earlier one an error so reset it! Or did you just make that up?


That is exactly what I'm saying. The GPS Data and Satellite centre of mass data is reset.

Another Quote from James Maxlow

What about space geodetic measurements?

"Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading."


I think this sums up the total lack of understanding of the scientific method. The why IS the theory! Gravity is measured at 9.8m/s^2


I told you already, Gravity is unlikely to change if mass isn't changing


think all your replies have clearly demonstrated a total lack of science and the methods used to come to conclusions. Your total lack of acknowledgement (admitted) of evidence and the only reason you support this ‘idea’ is because you think the alternative is ‘crap’. To which end I have already wasted too much time (and cannot believe that people have entertained you for nearly 30 pages) replying to a thread that really warrants no reply.


You would be surprised what I've learned over 30 pages

1. Growing Earth break the laws of thermodynamics
2. Expanding Earth makes more sense and changing density
3. Neal Adams theory about pair production in non-sense
4. A lot about dinosaurs and the effects of gravity over time
5. Why subduction is unique to Earth
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 6/2/2011 3:41:27 PM
re: andyaa


Think you will find that is Moses


Yah, same guy who said God made the earth before he made light... Sounds like a smart guy. He also made up the equally, retarded, Noah story.... That or we are all the end result of one very inbred family.


No, as explained, Expanding Earth IS NOT a theory, it was an idea conjured up in the 30's that modeled itself on the idea (no evidence) that if you shrank the Earth down, the continents would fit back together. There is still no evidence that the Earth is any bigger today than it was at anytime in the past, so by definition it cannot be a theory, nor a hypothesis.


Over 70% of the floor of our planet is less then 300 million years old. Now, I'm not a genius or anything, but if the Atlantic wasn't there 200 million years ago (established fact), that makes for a pretty big chunk of the Pacific (which is the same age) that also was not there. How much more evidence do you need?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 6/2/2011 1:02:06 PM
Re: Asarlai


OK, lets go to something easier, Monument valley. So, did a big storm create this also?


No Expanding Earth Theories are a better explanation then 'Eroding materials'


The simple fact is that we are no more evolved than those of the stone age


...

You can type that on this computerized mass user online forum and say that with a strait face... kudos!


The Earth is a living being and as such does grow.


...

I'm with you on the 'grow' part... what's is the 'living being' part?


Someone mentioned Noah


Yah... murdering psycho path that made up a lot of wild stories (Basically the first 5 books of the bible) as a political means to hold power over a large group of people.


The Grand Canyon was a huge city with a population of millions!


...

"Okay, if you want to add glitter to the glue you're sniffing that's fine, but don't dump your wack-a-do all over us. We'd rather not step in it." ~Supernatural
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 707 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 6/1/2011 1:28:06 PM
Re: abelian


Since you have a jump on everyone, go buy some real estate. 1 acre ought to turn into 2 in no time.


Maybe if you buy acreage in the centre of the splitting African Continent.

Ref: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3486

Aside from buying land directly on top of a volcanic rift that is identical to those on the bottom of the worlds oceans, Land doesn't tend to move around much... with the exception of the last major Earth quake which seemed to stretch out Japan by about 13'

Ref: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-japan-quake-science-20110
313,0,5782113.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20
latimes%2Fmiddleeast%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Middle%20East%29
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 705 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:17:26 PM
Re: Andyaa (From Erosion and the Grand Canyon)



James Maxlow recognizes subduction but doesn't feel the plates dive back into the mantle, rather, they jam into the crust where there movement is all but slowed or stopped.
Recognising subduction isn’t the same as saying that it happens. How can Maxlow recognise subduction which is the plates diving back into the mantle when he feels they don’t? I didn’t say he recognises it did I? My claim was that, he said it doesn’t even happen… Which you reiterated here, evidence of course indicates that subduction does happen.


Here is what James Maxlow summarizes about subduction

"As previously mentioned subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a static radius Earth. To maintain a Plate Tectonic static radius Earth the new oceanic crusts accumulating along the mid-ocean-spreading ridges must then be continuously disposed of elsewhere, displacing and recycling pre-existing crusts into the mantle by subduction. Modern planetary studies have shown this process to be unique to planet Earth, and hence without subduction Plate Tectonics cannot exist.

In Plate Tectonic theory, subduction zones mark sites of convective down welling of the Earths crust as well as part of the upper mantle. Subduction zones are postulated to exist at convergent plate boundaries around the margins of the Pacific Ocean, where oceanic and continental crustal plates converge with other plates and sink below to depths of approximately 100 kilometres, thereby recycling crust, sediment and trapped water into the deep mantle.

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth subduction of between 5,000 to 15,000 kilometres of Pacific oceanic crust beneath North America, for instance, is unnecessary. All subduction-related observational data simply record the crustal interaction between adjoining thick continental crusts, and relatively thin oceanic crusts during ongoing change in surface curvature. As Earth radius increases with time the surface curvature of the Earth flattens, giving rise to crustal interaction and jostling of plates along their margins as they stretch and distort during gravity-induced flattening. " ~James Maxlow

So to re-sumerize, he doesn't deny data that shows plate interacting with one another. He also shows that the idea that the Earth recycles 100% of it's pre-exsisting material is a fallacy. He goes into extensive geological evidence to discredit the assumed static earth radius in regards to specifically subduction.


We have facts like Trenches and arc volcanoes


Plate Tectonics and Expansion Earth Theorys share all the same evidence. The only difference between them really is one assumes a static Earth radius while the other does not so. On an Expanding Earth, I think it would be easier to understand how Volcanic tunnels can remain open. I would question why Volcanic Actively isn't shut off on plates that move around.


If it isn’t then this is where we get features like the Rockies.


" As the Earth radius increases the continental crust must distort, bend, twist and turn as it continuously flattens and adjusts during change in surface curvature. During this ongoing gravity-induced crustal flattening process compression causes folding of the soft sediments within sedimentary basins, as well as faulting, volcanic intrusion and metamorphism (heating and compression of the rocks).

When the continents began to break-up and disperse 200 million years ago, the edges of the newly formed continents then flexed and rose vertically to form the great escarpments and mountain ranges as the interiors collapse during ongoing changing surface curvature. This process is cyclical during ongoing increase in Earth radius, resulting in multiple and overlapping phases of mountain building, planation, sedimentation, uplift and erosion." ~James Maxlow


When I say ‘there is no evidence of an expanding earth’ I mean there was no evidence that it was smaller in the past.


With exception of Ophiolites, there is absolutely 0 evidence of ancient ocean floors. Plate Tectonics says they have been completely, and unquestionably recycled back into the mantle maintaining a static Earth radius. Expanding Earth theories recognize Ophiolites as some of the earliest inter plate interactions and that the planet is expanding over geological time. As stated above, both theories share the same evidence.


However, like ‘evidence’ of God/religions they all work on the same thinking… I don’t like evolution therefore creation MUST be correct. You appear to be working from the same premise, that is you dislike the hypothesis of subduction to explain the evidence, therefore expansion must be correct.


1. I'm not religious
2. I don't disagree with Evolution
3. It's not that I disagree with subduction, it's I disagree with the assumption that Earth maintains a static radius.


We have an observable phenomenon (in your case it would be we measured the radius of the Earth 10 years ago and it was less than it was today)


http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020729/full/news020729-9.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_156.html

I think you can see from the above links, the Earth Radius is certainly not as stable as Plate Tectonics assumes.


Again, like religions, you have come up with an idea… maybe because you don’t like to run with the pack or you just dislike the most commonly believed theory, then either dismiss any evidence to the contrary or simply do not require any which… turns it all into a belief.


I learned about Plate Tectonics in high school. Call it what ever you want, but I didn't like it at all because I thought it was a load of crap. I did not have any alternate perspectives in school, and just accepted it as the only theory. It was not until a few years ago when I first learned about Expanding Earth Theories. Stumbled across one of Neal Adams Videos. As basic, and unscientific as it was.... it made a hell of a lot more sense then Giant Islands forming, floating around, breaking up. Ect.


I think what you mean by ‘don’t know’ is that we can never prove a theory (we can never know because we were never there to witness it) however, this differs from your further assertion… ‘assuming a static Earth radius…’ because we CAN measure the Earths radius… This is a fact! The Earths radius = x. Now if we introduce t = time…


Earths radius =x today... what about 100 million years from now. It's impossible for us to see drastic change in a single life time. Satellites that measure the earth have been around for a few years. Interestingly enough, they are dictating centre of mass changes in earth radius. The information is being regarded as error and being corrected. Have you looked at the centre of Mass Correction data for LAGEOS-1, -2... I think 251mm is a tich high don't you think?


Same with gravity, 9.8m/s^2 Fact! But the theory of gravity is something completely different.


If the Earth Was increasing in size due to a change in the supper compressed inner/outer core density, then there would not be a change in gravity due to mass. However, there would be a slight change in gravity as spin slows down. The Earth Spin is Slowing down. If the Earth was increasing in size, it would safe to assume the tidal locked moons speed would need to compensate and increase. The moons speed is increasing, and that speed increase might be the cause of it moving away from the earth.


Now if you can come up with a fact (evidence) that shows the Earth has expanded uniformly year by year then you can come up with a theory to support that fact


Evidence : http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html

Age of the ocean floor is pretty conclusive. If you agree that the Atlantic was closed 200 million years ago... how can you deny the pacific wasn't when it's the same age as the Atlantic?


The reason the theories of an expanding earth have been debunked and dismissed is simple… There is no evidence (fact) to show the Earth is getting bigger and what I mean by evidence is something like a measurement of the Earth’s diameter taken over a few decades to show there is a difference or one that cannot be accounted for.


But there is... and the amount of evidence is increasing and yet still dismissed as errors or miss calculations. No one wants to hear about Expanding Earth Theories... something I consider to be a huge mistake.


When you are saying you have a theory of an expanding earth, it is like saying you have a theory about a fact… I have a theory I am 5’ 11”… What? You can have a theory WHY you are 5’ 11” but it is a fact you are 5’ 11”, go and measure your height. Same again, I have a theory I am getting taller… What? You can have a theory WHY you are getting taller but it is a fact that you are getting taller because you measured yourself last year and you were shorter then than you are now. So carry this on to, I have a theory the earth is expanding…What? It either is or it isn’t.


What I see happening is different. It's almost as if a child has measured themselves and marked it off as 5' ... the next year they measure themselves again and check off 5'2". They then conclude that the 2" must be some sort of error due to (insert random reason here) and set their data back to 5'


WHY this is occurring.


The WHY will remain unknown until science can start to take the question more seriously.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 6/1/2011 10:52:20 AM
Re: andyaa

I will create you a detailed response, but it will be off topic from this thread. I'll post the response at:

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/7289734datingPostpage29.aspx
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/30/2011 1:12:26 PM
Re: Andyaa


Agreed, but that isn't James Maxlows "Expansion Tectonics" theory is it! His theory relies on there being NO subduction... which you agree does happen! So my analogy for the theory is correct where as your analogy is incorrect and bases itself on a different theory which contradicts Maxlows theory AND all evidence!


James Maxlow recognizes subduction but doesn't feel the plates dive back into the mantle, rather, they jam into the crust where there movement is all but slowed or stopped. Dennis McCarthy has clearly laid out charts that show the amount of material spreading in the oceanic ridges in substantially higher then the amount of material being subducted. Now, I'm not a math major, but I do know when you add more then you subtract, you are left with a net increase.


Where are you getting this from? Back in 1999 with the Mars Global Surveyor we have evidence of plate tectonics and therefore subduction must have occured. Whether it is still occuring is unknown but aincient volcanoes massive in comparison to Earth also indicate this prosess and which probably caused the canyon there. Again, this is a stumbling block for you...WHY would Earth be so unique that it is somehow expanding and not Mars? There is no known process for this. If expansion was a process then it would be seen happening on Mars... But it aint!


Thank you for the follow up links, they are the first ones I've seen that have made any reference to subduction on Mars. With the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, it only makes sense that there would have once been subducting process going on.


Anymore than most people would admit to the existence of GOD... because there is no evidence for either... it is merely a belief!


Unlike God, the planet Earth is right under our feet, and is open to a very wide range of study. You want evidence, the age of the ocean floor should be all the evidence anyone should need.


What the evidence in that research shows is that mass... probably ocean mass from melting Polar Regions is migrating towards the tropics… If the Earth was expanding in your Ballon analogy, the poles would also be increasing as this unusual rate… especially with the ice being removed as well…BUT it aint! Again evidence to contradict. But to quote ’ But I have a feeling you are less interested in the evidence’


It might not be a mass increase, it might be a thermal density change in existing matter as it transforms from a super dense to less dense state. The honest answer is, we don't know. But to assume a static earth radius is a mistake. I don't know if you know this. But I recommend looking for the correction data for centre of mass of gravity researching satellite. I believe it's up to 280mm now. They seem to need to increase it a little more each year.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/28/2011 3:35:38 PM
Re: andyaa

Sorry, your analogy is wrong. You attach 6 bricks around a sphere and then enlarge the sphere, the bricks are going to be pushed apart from each other.

The best analogy I have for you is to imagine a sphere, cover it with mud and then dry it out. If you then double the size of the sphere, the mud is going to first lift, stretch and break at it's weakest points. It's going to break inwards in many point causing an uplift in material. Call them mountains. More open areas are going to stretch out... and in some areas, even tear apart causing canyons. Considering how much higher the sea level was 70 million years ago, a very different formation of the Erosion of the grand Canyon could be much easier to understand.


So the evidence is to the contrary... therefore the theory fails!


Subduction is unique to earth thanks to our Oceans. Mars Valles Marinerus Is a massive canyon very similar, only on a grander scale to the Grand Canyon. Could you please point out where the material is subduction on Mars to create that rift?


I don't need to because the theories have already been dismissed.


I've talked with a few geologists and asked them to dismiss James Maxlows work. None of them would put their name on paper to dismiss his theory. In the case of real peer reviews, each critic is subject to it's own level of scrutiny.

With that said... I have to say it's almost funny to see satellite evidence that just 'baffles and confuses' scientists who study the data.

"...Researchers are baffled..."

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/020729/full/news020729-9.html

They would NEVER admit the possibility that the Earth could be expanding. The means would remain unknown, and that would be a serious problem for science. It's more likely that satellite research would loose credibility, funding and be discarded before they would begin to question how the Earth could be Expanding.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/27/2011 3:44:55 PM

Theory! You mean you have a hypothesis you can test... An idea is probably the closest you can come to an 'expanding Earth', even that is asking a lot.


I personally don't have a theory, but I fully support James Maxlows "Expansion Tectonics" theory which is fully supported with a massive range of testable Geological, Geographical and Geophysical evidence. If you don't like it, tell it to his Masters in Geology.

Dennis McCarthy focuses his evidence in support of an expanding earth on Trans-Pacific Biotic disjuntions that share hundreds of poor dispersing sister taxa which you can also verify.

But I have a feeling you are less interested in the evidence that the Earth did expand, and more bent on the explanation to how that could be happening.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/27/2011 9:38:24 AM
Re: igorgrankensteen


My curiosity is sparked in this case, not JUST because the canyons are so extensive and unusual (MAYBE there's something like them elsewhere on this planet, but I am not aware of such)


Be Sure to check out research of the Valles Marinerus on Mars
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris

Makes the Grand Canyon look like a road side ditch.


but because of lots of other little things here and there on our little spit of land (the North American Continent) which are themselves indicative of SOMETHING, but I don't know what.


Are you familiar with legitimate Expanding Earth theories like the ones presented by James Maxlow or Dennis McCarthy? When it comes to geoscience, the theories answer a lot of great questions Plate Tectonics is still coming up with work around ideas to justify a static Earth Radius.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Cchek tihs naet sfutf!
Posted: 5/27/2011 9:26:51 AM
Re: Holly_Golightly1


Also, one must realize that the more complex the ideas are and the more complicated and complex the vocabulary is, the more difficult, if not impossible, such writing would be to comprehend. Think about trying to read James Joyce or William Faulker in this type of writing.


Honestly, it's defiantly not something you can use for practical use. What it does do is show you one more way the human brain can connect dots that we don't even realize. I doubt the worlds best AI program would be able to make sense of that above verse, and yet we humans can still put it together with relative ease :)
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Cchek tihs naet sfutf!
Posted: 5/26/2011 8:32:12 PM
cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, The olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/26/2011 8:11:38 PM
Re: igorfrankensteen


The reason I came to wonder about this, was that I have several times seen how things long accepted as fact, have been discovered to be different from what was previously thought. In this case, I simply suspect there is a more interesting story that might be true here. Nothing special, such as lost civilisations, or hollow planets, just a more interesting geology. Maybe not even more interesting, just different from what has been thought.

Many times through history, the FIRST explanation someone in authority suggests for something, gets written into the books, and STAYS there. Once the books get "dusty enough," they take on authority of their own. That it was the first thing thought, ends up being the REASON alternatives are rejected, and not science.

And yes, I am skeptical about TONS of things.


Wow... that was some of the finest display of English writing I've ever seen on these forums... It's almost like a tease to a great new discovery... please god... don't say

ALIENS

next.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/26/2011 1:56:12 PM
Re: Asarlai


The Grand Canyon is man made


.....

.....

Was Valles Marinerus man made as well?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 704 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 5/26/2011 10:35:00 AM
Here is another one... This one is really new, less then a month old. Moor doomsday crap, but I have to say it used to be rare to find any sites or news articles on expanding Earth theories, but they seem to be spreading rapidly.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/598/822/Doomsday:_Earths_core_spinning_out_of_control.html
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Erosion and the Grand Canyon
Posted: 5/26/2011 9:50:05 AM
Re: Stargazer


! This is almost as bad as that 'growing earth' crap!


Nice...

http://www.expandingearth.com/research03.htm
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 702 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 5/25/2011 10:53:17 PM
Found another expanding Earth Site by Stephen Hurrell. This one seems to focus on the issues surrounding dinosaurs.

http://www.dinox.org/
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
A sincere question for the Christians
Posted: 5/3/2011 7:38:01 AM
For starters, this is science/philosophy forum
Not a Religion/Mythology forum

If you expecting a more understanding/compassionate response in relation to your beliefs, you might want to go ask a group less objective and rational.

What is more likely? Moses was talked to by God to govern his people out of Egypt, or Moses, like most politians, made up a load of crap and promises he couldn't keep as a means to control people. Moses broke every one of the commandments he laid out and is pretty much responisible for all the first books of the bible including Creationists beloved Genesis. God didn't create man in his image, Moses created God in his.

I'm sorry what about the horrible things that became of your friend, but they are all due to the actions of people and their dark choices. Hopefully we can evolve as a race and move forward to a better world for future generations.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 699 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/27/2011 7:43:17 PM

So in that sense the fish are a lot like those that believe in the growing earth nonsense, and they can be fooled into believing almost anything.


I generally consider myself a pretty objective, rational person. Scepticism is a way of life in this generation and so it should be. One of the most important things I learned growing up is the absolute importance of getting all the information on a subject before jumping to conclusions. If someone presents an idea, I'm equally interested in hearing what someone who would shoot down that idea has to say. Take everything in, judge for yourself what is important to you, and how you can use it.

What's important about Expanding Earth theories over Plate Tectonics? I've read a lot of ridicules theories in my time, and I honestly laughed at the growing earth theories when I first stumbled across them. As I took the time to learn more about it... I became aware that it's anything but ridicules. For that matter, it could be the most important key ever in understanding the evolution of planets. It's weird that I just want to show people my perception of it and to see it laughed at. It's no wonder Neal lashes out at people on U-Tube. It's no wonder Dennis McCarthy won't engage on forums anymore. It's no wonder no one has offered to help Maxlow create more compelling videos to present his work. If the guy was local, trust me, I would be on his door offering to help produce an amazing presentation for online use.

Here is the current site I'm reviewing on the subject... if you want to see where I'm at right now

http://www.ncgt.org/index.php
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Death...and you !
Posted: 4/27/2011 12:00:31 AM
Depends

I had a close friend die of aids: I felt sad I hadn't done more to be a better friend and get her off the streets when I could have.

My grandfather died of old age: I celebrated the life he had with friends

A close friends baby died: I cried

A close friend committed suicide: I didn't care, freaking selfish!

In the end, only kindness matters. There is no after, and if there is, it will be created by the legacy you leave behind. What it is we are setting the stage for a future re-incarnation of our energy. The difference between a good and evil person could be setting the environment for heaven or hell as our home here on earth in the years to come.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Disproving the existence of a god
Posted: 4/26/2011 9:57:27 AM
Why am I reading a lot back and forth about the 10 commandments. According to the title of the thread, this post has as much to do with Jewishim as it does with Zues laws. The 10 commandants where the insane ramblings of a murdering hypocrite. I wouldn't drop change on Moses on the street, and he would probably go after my first born because of it. Is that the person you want to base morality on? The guy talked to plants, there is nothing more to say.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Disproving the existence of a god
Posted: 4/24/2011 7:29:33 PM
Re: Disproving the existence of a god

I will disprove all the aspects of any religion like a bad mythology. With that said you can not disprove a 4th dimesion like the binary code to a computer.

Conclusion

Waste of time.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Physics question about Iron Density
Posted: 4/19/2011 8:16:00 AM

Is ANYTHING ever LESS dense, under intense pressure?


Considering the pressure pushes the atoms closer together, I can't think of any examples. Even if you bounce a steel ball off the ground, at the moment of impact, the molecules undergo enough pressure to squeeze themselves together. The release of that energy it was causes the metal to spring back up (often not very high) I believe there is a fictional material called Unobtainium that wouldn't change in intense pressure, for that matter, it would get stronger and produce energy :)


Given that we believe in Black Holes, I don't know if there are even things that are the SAME density when you place them under excessive pressure, than when you don't.


Black Holes aren't really holes. They are more like a moon with the mass of a red giant. I'm probably grossly underestimating the figure on it's mass, probably significantly more. It's enough mass to reduce any kind of mass that gets close enough to sub atomic particles, and then rip those up to.

I was interested in knowing what would happen when you get two black holes feeding on each other. Apparently one of the worlds greatest super computers was challenged with the mathematics. Apparently the end result is a bigger black hole.

 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 697 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/18/2011 6:19:09 PM
@Paul K

I've never been fishing, but I looked up Popiel Pocket Fisherman. Looked like crap to me... and the reviewer couldn't catch a single fish with it.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Physics question about Iron Density
Posted: 4/18/2011 2:36:31 PM
@Igor

I converted 9000psi to gigapascal, I was interested in making a reference to how big those numbers are. Yes I know the diffence between a car with open space and a solid object. My primary interest is finding out if it would take up less volume at those pressures.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 695 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/18/2011 1:39:24 PM
@Paul

First off, its not my theory, not Neals either. During the start of the 1900's Roberto Mantovani published his work on earth expansion and continental drift. He was really one of the originals to say that all the continents of the earth fit together near perfectly, on a much smaller globe. He was also one of the first to say that it was volcanic activity, which broke the land up into smaller continents. A few years later Alfred Wegener pretty much published the exsact same work, only it excluded Earth Expansion as a mechanism for continental drift.

Next, go read up on Early Earth development. The reason we arn't Venus 2.0 has to do with our awesome Iron Core, and More evidence seems to suggest flook astroligal accident over anything mentioned in scripture.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 693 (view)
 
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/18/2011 1:02:13 PM
@ Paul

Last time Abelian coined in on this thread, I think it was some asinine comment about leprechauns with pick axes, before him was another physics exert who said the subject wasnt worth discussing because the force of gravity wasn't strong enough to pull apart a rocky planet. Forgive me if I didn't feel much effort in their highly educated responses.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 5388 (view)
 
Does God exist?
Posted: 4/18/2011 11:20:42 AM
^^ LOL

Yah, that's what atheist means.

Atheist means they believe that God does not exsisist. At no point in any definition of the word do we find acceptance of any Gods presence in reality.

Edit: you might want to try looking up Theist: it's kinda like knowing there is more to the universe, but it is beyond definition.
 
Show ALL Forums