From a deceptive advertising standard, it matters very much what information is put on packaging. Companies have a vested interest in not supplying false information for the very reason you are objecting to - they can be sued - and not just cigarette manufacturers either - all manufacturers/suppliers/distributors. Laws such as these protect regular folks like us from not falling victim to scams etc. or using products that we believe are safe which aren't.

...However, many plaintiffs have attempted to hold tobacco manufacturers responsible for wrongful death, injury, or medical expenses related to cigarette smoking. A few years ago there was a judgement against cigarette manufacturers that held that they had violated civil racketeering laws, liability, negligence, and even warranty claims, and lied to consumers about the health risks of smoking...

Part of that landmark opinion held that companies are targeting youth in order to get them hooked. For most people, once they are hooked that's it. Class action lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers over those "light" smokes because they incorrectly created the impression that these were safer than "regular" smokes. So yeah, even though they are tools of addiction and death, companies that produce and market them can be sued because the product eventually killed the user.

God Has The Power to Change behaviour and circumstances....

as God Allows disobedience to play out

~some~ people get that sin is separation from Gods Goodness .. these same people freely connect with God so that they are under Gods Umbrella while the sin controversy is playing out...

death, disesase and all manner of evil are the direct result of disobedience to The All Knowing Creators Laws of Love and Harmony... God Will Right every wrong and anyone who longs for Eternity enough to live it here on earth will be raised with Jesus... Jesus kept Gods Laws and was raised from death to Eternal Life, so too will those who follow Christs Example.... blessings for Goodness in our lives over evil

Perhaps it was a mistake to precis an entire website in a single sentence. My bad - I foolishly thought people may look at the original. Physicists regard the standard gravitational parameter - the product of mass and the gravitational constant - as much more constant than either G or M....

The Earth is flat anyway. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue it's expanding.

You must all have missed the perfectly obvious explanation discussed by Xavier Borg on his website. ~link~. His theory is that relativistic changes in velocities due to large scale cosmic rotations influence the locally experience environment, including mass and gravity. It renders core expansion and accretion unnecessary.

Anyway, I think the far bigger challenge is to preserve the ONE “intelligent” species we definitely know exists here in the Milky Way…. Us.

Actually, I would have to say that some video games, as was previously mentioned with "the grind" take time to learn and perfect. Furthermore, you can interact with the "real" world in video games - one of the most popular video games today (World of Warcraft) is actually highly social, just not on a "physical" level. I've actually made a lot of life-long friends through video games.

True. But the timeline and the vastness of space are huge factors. Along with the empirical evidence that intelligence is not the 'end game' of evolution. Life could exist for billions of years on millions of planets without produceing a single intelligent species. Many can't seem to grasp that.

That says nothing about two separate intelligent lifeforms existing at the same time and close enough to communicate let alone traveling to meet each other.

Also, I'm pretty sure the chances of intelligent life would be more like 0.000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000001% or even worse odds.

I mean, mathicatially speaking, not only is it possible intelligent life could be in the Oceans, but its far more likely than on Land, because life has been in the Oceans longer, and is more diverse. Math doesn't make fact- esspecially when you're making up the numbers.

Free speach......... just how far does the right to free speach reach......

Re: Those numbers are hugely optimistic.

So, If you could package all of humanity into this huge box to sell in the intergalactic space market, what marketing message would you stamp on the box as the selling point?

...Video-games, the scourge of the new millennium provide a quick and dirty fix of 'achievement'. Easily accessible false achievement. In the last decade there has been an exponential boom in the industry, we the masses plug in while abandoning reality for simulation. The hours spent building up an endorphin high while believing you achieved a victory, kill, money, love, adventure are followed by little more than a crashing low once you realize that what you really did was miss your life; while sitting comatose, perception funneled in a box...

So the odds of two intelligent species on different planets, capable of communicateing with each other (let alone reaching each other) existing in this galaxy at the same time is pretty much zero.

...They can only base their theory on existing observational data. Try to remember the limitations and infancy of astronomical science back in the 60's and 70's. People used to think the earth was flat at one time too. Science learns as it improves its technological and observational abilities.

Bottom line, it's an idea you "like" and, because it's not "mainstream," well so much the better. Now you can say "I stand apart from the mainstream and so know better than all those 'sheep' who blithely follow the herd leader."

Which still doesn't explain the mechanism of expansion or where all this extra mass is coming from.

Thank god we have another physicist here.

"It makes me feel good to hold myself superior to almost every scientist in every related field, based on a very simple and easy to hold opinion, requiring absolutely no actual intellectual effort on my part to refute their work, no matter how much REAL evidence (and millions of man-hours of actual research) exists contradicting every bit of this expanding earth theory, because it's EASY."

Further the plant fossil record inducates a relative high humidity, very unlikely if the oceans are buried beneath the crust and the surface is under higher atmospheric pressure. Ferns don't grow in desert regions, but they are found in the fossil record over 300 million years ago.

Gosh...well that settles it. It fits like a square peg into a round hole but okay , sure , why not. As long as you've got the hammer and the time , I'm sure you can make "it fit"...

Just out of curiosity , have you considered researching what every other geologist , cosmologist , physicist , ...actually , pretty much everybody but a cartoonist thinks of this stuff ? You might do well to try that first before continuing to embarass yourself by clinging to this growing-Earth hypothesis.

go re-read the above and tell me my translation is false.

I didn't know the moon was moving away from the Earth. That makes no sense to me. Isn't the moon caught in the Earth's gravitational field? If gravity is an attracting force, can you explain how the moon is moving away from the Earth? Is there a force pulling it away from the Earth or what?

Not where it counts...We would see things like more robust dinosaur ear drums in order to handle the greater pressures placed on them...Additionaly that higher atmospheric pressure reduces humidity. Which in turn effects plant life. Which in turn effects thier ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. And without the great oceans on the surface to reflect sunlight we would have quickly turned into a Venus like inhospitable nightmareish place....Not to mention the centripetal forces as Earth grows slowing its rotation and its dynamo effect on the magnetic core as well as what effect such shorter day/night cycles would have had on biology

How does a static mass expanding earth increase the magnetic field so as to keep from "growing" into the Van Allen radiation belts?

If the Earth has doubled in size in the last 200 million years without adding mass then there would be extream variation in the fossil record. This is because atmospheric pressure would drop with the expansion (two volumes can contain the same mass of air, but the larger one will be at less pressure). And the pressure change has effect on things like the freezeing and boiling point of water. Not to mention the biological diffrences required to exist in higher pressure atmospheres (example lungs could be much smaller).

Was a refrence to Neal Adams theory which seems to argue that the earth was half its current size (50%) 200 million years ago...most of his arguments use the refrence point of when Pangeaea split apart with the oceans filling the growing spaces in the split (if you recall a big "selling point" of this theory is that the ocean floors are only 200 million years old)

No, there are, at best, fanciful and/or shoe-horned explanations for the water.

Your cartoonist and the geophysicist you quote left, right and center.

No, it's not contradictory to anything. For instance, the fact that continents fit together might stem from the fact that they were together...in a massive 'super continent.' Which, in fact, there is evidence for.

Argument based on ignorance. The fact that the mechanism for gravity is not fully understood has no bearing on the validity of "growing" Earth. Besides, given your apparent lack of understanding of even something so basic as gravity (i.e. planets and stars must generate their gravity from a central black hole), then how can you honestly assess your understanding for the science around this? It's called critical thinking.

How does a static mass expanding earth increase the magnetic field so as to keep from "growing" into the Van Allen radiation belts?

If we gain tons of star dust everyday. Is not the earth growing?

The difference being that the amount of accretion is minuscule and is quite understandable. Conversely, the proposed mechanism for light's vision is "it comes from the core. Somehow. We don't know how."

Just throwing a thesaurus at a question, while completely ignoring the point and failing to understand what you yourself have said, is truly pathetic.

Okay, you're truly having trouble comprehending my comments, so I'll clear this one up a bit: When you can tell us "why" the post was closed by the moderators and what the threat of the extremely important information is, and why "they" are working to hide it, it will be time for you to leave the nest.

When you can tell us "why," it will be time for you to leave, grasshopper

It seems to me light that this has become your religion. Consider the following...

The proposal calls for the creation of mass from some unknown process. Rather than being seen as a weakness in the theory, you insist that it's simply something that "we cannot know." Belief in the absence of evidence. Sound familiar?

You see "proof" in the planets. And yet, despite contradictory evidence presented, you insist that its still true. Belief, not only in the absence of evidence but in the light of contradictory evidence. Sound familiar?

Oh, the water question. Where did it come from?...Bottom line, "We don't know. It just appeared." Almost a "miraculous" occurrence. Sound familiar?

and let's not forget, every religion has to have its prophets.

do you actually take your self seriously?

here's a thread with a better discussion about the whole thing:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64739-another-big-blow-growing-earth-theory.html

If God is the beginning or Creator of all that exist then how could God ever have come into existence?

Perhaps the big crack in Ethopia is proof to the earth-growers' theory that our mother planet is growing so much she's now splitting her pants wide open ?

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

I'm sorry the earth is not growing, it's a ridiculous claim. There is no known scientific mechanism for that kind of change. There would have to be some sort of fusion/fission reaction taking place below the crust of the earth (which would eventually cook the entire earth) and there is no such thing. They would have found it in Geophysics a long time ago. Try. Google "shock dynamics", that's what really happened.

Okay, well, given the fact that a great deal of subduction and spreading occurs in the oceans, it seems to make a great deal of sense that most of the ocean floor is younger then the continents. So where's the problem?

The reason that only a small minority of people "get" what looks like common sense to them is because they don't "get" the rest of the picture. Subduction is the part they're missing and it's the reason for earthquakes. Prove there's no such thing as an earthquake and there might be room to shoe-horn in the hypothesis that the Earth is actually growing....

Despite ignoring the evidence that contradicts the growing-Earth hypothesis , the principles used to explain a growing Earth in the hypothesis also don't seem to apply anywhere else in the solar system. Why is that ?

I'm not saying the earth is getting hugely larger... its more minutely larger via. falling meteors and dust etc.

Re: Except, perhaps, the rantings of a cartoonist turned animator (who plays very fast and loose with coastlines and such in his "wonderful" animations

oh and for clarity ... I do believe my studies told me the continents have been moving for much longer than 200 million years. They have joined and separated 2 or 3 times in the simulations that I saw. ... although its funny how they always kept them looking like today and did not allow for coastline change maybe in future models

I am curious. ... as for the expansion of all the water as global warming occurs... hmmm. would that count? water expands both ways from 4 degrees C.

God Created His Word and Moses therefore it was The Teaching of God ~through~ Moses... blessings

Thorb, see post #355 in this thread, on page 15. The Earth is slightly shrinking, according to the GPS data provided by the JPL dataset posted slightly above that one, even with the over-representation of data points in "glacial rebound" regions.

Let's be clear here light...black holes are bad things for matter.

If a planet had a black hole in its center (or a star) then that would mean the star or planet was dead or about to die, disappearing from the rest of the universe.

Well, that's just stupid!

Light - I do not deny the existence of a god-like entity. I deny the claims currently made by the religious individuals of a wrathful, omnipotent God who controls whether or not we end up in hell.

Sociology is not a science.

"But, if you consider Darwin's words, then realise that since he was the inventor of the theory popularly called evolution, then if anyone would know about it best, it would be him"

..this would have to sum up my position with regard to God.. He Created The Universe, if anyone would know about it best it would be Him... blessings

In order to say that God created the universe, you must first prove that he exists. After that, you must then prove he wrote the bible and that the universe was created by him.... We have evidence that evolution happens... There has yet to be evidence for a supreme creator.

So what lies in the heart of the earth which initially attracted so much post supernovae debris in the first place. What could there be which overrode the gravitational attraction of all the other debris in other directions.

Perhaps something like a black hole which went through a period of being satisfied has evolved to going in the opposite direction.

No, he did not. He mentions a man named HISTER. That is all. And this is also the latin name for the Danube river. Of course, will a little wordplay, you could make it say Hitler. Although it also could be changed into many, many, MANY other words and names. I must say, your so-called prophet is leaving me unimpressed so far....

So, despite all evidence AGAINST his claims, you would rather believe there was a conspiracy to kill him? Um...wow. This speaks volumes of your thought processes.

You probably meant; by the way, "mulled", not "mauled".