Lucy, Expanded Earth and the Hobbit

14 Guests, 0 Users

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much. ~ Walter Lippmann

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[Jana]

I have been looking into our hominid origins to see why we are dying at midlife of degenerative diseases instead of our genetic 140 year lifespan and this is probably the coolest thing I have ever found...

EXPANDED EARTH THEORY AND THE HOBBIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea —animation of Pangaea on wikipedia.

It becomes obvious how similar species to Kenya's “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis), who lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago, could have made it to the island of Flores in Indonesia.

Plate tectonic theory has it that 250 million years ago in the super-continent Pangaea, new rifts were forming along the margins of east Africa, Antarctica and Madagascar. India was said to be formally joined to the coast near the rift valley was proposed to move up to settle against Asia. Proponents of the expanded earth say that 250 million years ago, the Earth's radius was only 50-60% of the current radius, entailing a continental matching on the Pacific facing sides of the continents as well as on the Atlantic sides.

However Neal Adam’s Expanded Earth Theory makes more sense than continental drift. The existence of Flores Hobbit literally proves the validity of the expanded earth theory!

An Indonesian-Australian scientific team found a skull and bones belonging to a new human dwarf species they said lived on the island until 12 000 years ago. Homo florensius stood just one-metre-tall, used hand tools, hunted pigmy elephants and had an extraordinarily small brain size at 380cc, that is no bigger than a chimpanzee brain. Lucy (A. afarensis) also had a relatively small brain size (~380-430cc).
 
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html —In this animation Neal Adams shows how on a smaller sized earth India, Indonesia and Africa were joined together. At one point Flores was joined to the continental land mass.

The earth obviously expanded because the basalt ocean floor in all oceans of the world is the same progressive age and none of it, none, is older than 200 million years old. Only the lower oceanic plates gain new edges … and grow outward.  Continents don’t move. Only the Oceanic Plate that they sit in, moves! The Earth, 200 million years ago, had no deep oceans, and all the continents were seamlessly together as one land that covered a smaller planet. A smaller, lower gravity Earth would explain the existence of gigantic insects, large dinosaurs, etc…oxygen concentration reached its peak of about 35% 300 million years ago. It declined abruptly at the end of the Permian, about 250 million years ago, a time of the greatest mass extinction in the planet's history. Neal Adams proposed mechanism of expansion, in which new mass is created by electron/positron pair production within the core of the Earth, ie: mass from energy.

In the expanded earth animation Indonesia and Malaysia was joined onto East Africa, and rather than little hobbit making a 4000 mile journey by sail boat (carrying his little pigmy elephants on board)…he would just have to stay put in his snug cave for 180 million years while the Indian ocean grew in size! The Melanesian people of the Pacific and the Aborigine of Australia may have copped a ride out of Africa on their own land masses in a similar fashion. If continental movement by expanded ocean floor is the answer to early hominoid dispersal that means we have to rework our ideas of the age of the branching of the frugivore hominoids.

What this shows us is that our bipedal homo ancestry is much older than we thought and the point at which we diverged from chimpanzees did not occur sometime between about 6.5 million and 10 million years ago, but that the existence of the Hobbit proves that our bipedal-ness began prior to the 200 million year period when the land masses started to move away from each other as the ocean bottom grew. Essentially the cradle of humanity split and early hominids ended up on two sides of the Indian ocean. And remember that if Chimpanzee’s DNA is 96% the same as ours that means these Hobbits and Lucy lines must be even closer to our DNA.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/program.html  —NOVA Videos on Indonesian Hobbit.
www.nealadams.com/nmu.html   —Expanded Earth Theory Animation

[Francis]

The question that I have is: who 'wrote' or composed DNA? Where did DNA come from and how did it come to be? I think of DNA as like the plans and specifications for a house. These things don't just spontaneously arise out of thin air. This is the whole monkeys and typewriters argument, which I find quite compelling. IOW such complexity must have a creative intelligence behind it. DNA did not arise out of a random process, nor from a blind sorting process like Darwin's natural selection. Darwin: evolution of subspecies arises due to DNA modifications from mutations and sexual recombinations, which are then subject to preferential selection of some of these new forms for survival.  I diverge from the 'increasing complexity' crowd also since I don't believe that life is increasing in complexity. Bucky Fuller was vehement in his stance that increasing complexity was an illusion. I agree with him after looking into it. My view is: complexity is a state of mind, not a state of nature. This is readily seen by anyone trying to compose a rigorous, quantitative and scientific definition of the term 'complexity'

It is my opinion that what we call 'evolution' is just the icing on the cake, not the primary creative intelligence behind the original production of DNA. Now 'evolution' is just a word and we can define or redefine it whatever way we'd like. Don't get me wrong, Darwin's evolution is an intelligent process, because it sorts. In my view the basic criterion for intelligence is sorting. This is how we can call a computer 'intelligent' because it sorts. I'm saying that Darwin's evolution is a blind and soulless sorting process, not unlike a computer. This was Darwin's breakthrough: no creative intelligence is needed to explain the diversity of species and subspecies. He does not offer any explanation for the origin of DNA, just the divergence and diversity of phenotypes. For this reason, I would suggest the title should have been: The Origin of Subspecies.

Even though some mutations are probably random, the natural and sexual selection process is not. BTW, sexual selection is a form of natural selection, they are not distinct. So like a computer, I see evolution as 'intelligent', but not creative. So I think that there is another creative intelligence that is behind the genesis of DNA.

As an aside, some have speculated that subspecies devlopment is not driven by random process at all. They speculate that the DNA which is largely unexpressed is subject to a time-release formula that sheds histones with each successive generation. These histones block the expression of some parts of the DNA and when they fall off they then allow the previously unexpressed portions of the DNA to be expressed. Thus, according to this view, most of the development of the subspecies were also anticipated by the 'creator'

Thoughtful people may disagree on this, but that's my take on it.


As to some of the facts of the post: the dates are based on carbon dating which is typically calibrated by tree rings. Because 250 million year old trees have yet to be found, any dates beyond a few thousand years ago are speculative. Again, my take.

As far as the 96% of the DNA is the same for chimps and people, someone said that 95% of DNA is the same for watermelons and people. Not sure if this is true, but you get the point.

[Jana]

Neal Adams animations are conclusive. And if you look at the pictures of the ocean floor the ridges are aligned in a pattern that confirms expansion, but not plate tectonics. The continents, themselves, are plus or minus 30 to 40 miles thick! The oceanic plates are only 4 to 5 miles thick. The basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust.

The thing that people don't really get with the creation of DNA, as with any organic molecule, it is the whole universe that creates it. Sure it is the sun, harmonics of the planet, and the earth herself which create the DNA locally, but it is the creatrix intelligence of the entire universe that is the formative force. It is a priori in the morphogenesis of the atoms and forces of nature.

Earth was apparently hit by a meteor around the time when the expansion began in earnest (250 mya) which may have contributed some water. But I think water itself is made in the deeper regions of the crust, and rose to fill the basalt basins of the oceans.

The expanded earth theory is pretty easy to prove. All one needs to do is to do a comparison of the global fossil record at the continental edges at 250 million years ago...if flora and fauna match at the edges all around the world, then this proves conclusively that the world was smaller at that time and no deep oceans existed.

[Francis]

I'd be happy to comment on the plate tectonics theory and evidence, but I'd like to comment on this first:

The thing that people don't really get with the creation of DNA, as with any organic molecule, it is the whole universe that creates it. Sure it is the sun, harmonics of the planet, and the earth herself which create the DNA locally, but it is the creatrix intelligence of the entire universe that is the formative force. It is a priori in the morphogenesis of the atoms and forces of nature.

I think of it this way: instead of the term 'DNA' let's use the term 'skyscraper', so we have;

"The thing that people don't really get with the creation of skyscraper, as with any structure, it is the whole universe that creates it. Sure it is the sun, harmonics of the planet, and the earth herself which create the skyscraper locally, but it is the creatrix intelligence of the entire universe that is the formative force. It is a priori in the morphogenesis of the structures and forces of nature."

Ok, fine but there are a whole series of designers and contractors involved that you've just glossed over with this type of 'big picture' summary. Without the intervention of these people, the skyscraper would never exist. No amount of monkeys with toolbelts would ever make it happen.

Beside that, I also doubt the premise. I think this is like saying that babies are created by cradles. We see a baby in a cradle and we assume that the cradle created the baby. This strikes me as eminently simplistic and naive. No offence intended Jana, but this is my honest reaction. It probably reflects some kind of unconscious emotional attachment on my part, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily invalid in substance.

Now, about the expanding earth theory: I have no objection to the expanding earth theory as proposed. Although I do not see the mechanism by which it happens, I don't doubt the possibility of it. The guy seems to have done his homework.

[Jana]

I will ask my physicist friend about the generation of matter from energy within a cooling earth. But the crystalization process of rock from mantle would itself lead to some expansion.
The virgin water theory was proposed by some geologist...probably as the hydrogen rich water rose from the deeper crust it mated with the 35% O2 in the air and greatly expanded the water volume...this is a mechanism described by David Wolfe, though not sure if he was referencing Schauberger or not. The slow loss of O2 from the air by water-mating combined with the increasing gravity of the growing earth would have combined to lead to the loss of the large insects and dinosaurs. Post Cretaceous there was millions of year of volcanic activity as the earth opened herself up to the expansion process.

Asteroid Strike In Yucatan 65 mya...hit the Yucatan peninsula obliquely from the southeast at a 20- to 30-degree angle,
The Volcanism of the Deccan Traps in India which probably opened up when the 65ma asteriod hit was the main factor leading to the demise of the dinasaurs. The presence of an iridium anomaly in inter-lava sediments, may indicate that the eruption straddled the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. 65 million years ago India was directly opposite the Yucatan, so the force of the hit split open the mantle in India.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029134743.htm

Er, it is rather obvious that the cradle (Universe) created the baby (DNA). In the same say it creates water molecules...it just takes a little longer. If we go to the other side of the universe and find life, there will again be DNA.

[Francis]

About the expanding earth: it is possible that the earth is cooling and expanding. This would make sense with the molten core idea. Like the fact that ice is less dense than water, solid rock is perhaps more dense than molten rock. So as the earth cools, rock congeals and floats up. Again like ice does.  Most materials expand when heated, so there may be some reactiion that is generating heat in the core, thus causing the expansion. The idea of the expanding earth has several different possible explanations. I think the guy is onto some interesting stuff here. What's his explanation?

it is rather obvious that the cradle (Universe) created the baby (DNA).

This theory is called "spontaneous generation" and has been dicredited by science.

Until the early 19th century people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter — abiogenesis. In contrast, beliefs where one form of life derives from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers) was heterogenesis.[7] Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.[8]

In the 17th century, such assumptions started to be questioned; for example, in 1646, Sir Thomas Browne published his Pseudodoxia Epidemica (subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths), which was an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted. For example, his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."[9]

The subsequent discovery of microorganisms seemed to strengthen the spontaneous generation camp. As far back as 1546, the physician Girolamo Fracastoro had theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores". However, even he did not go so far as to assert that the "spores" were living creatures, and regardless, his theories were not widely accepted at the time. All that changed in 1665, when Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism (he is also credited for naming the cell, which he discovered while observing cork samples). Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, who drew and described microorganisms that are now thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. These discoveries sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.[10] Many felt such organisms were proof of spontaneous generation, since they seemed too simplistic for sexual reproduction, and asexual reproduction through cell division had not yet been observed.

The first solid evidence against spontaneous generation came from the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the 17th century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg").

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear of their own accord in sterile nutrient-rich media, and which supported cell theory. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Spontaneous_generation

Accroding to cell theory:

All cells come from pre-existing cells. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

[Jana]

No not spontaneous generation, cause and effect of billions of billions of years of morphogenic genesis...nothing spontaneous about it...but it is inevitable. This was what Ken was hinting at, but no one really gets, perhaps because it has not been described well enough yet. 
It KW can't describe it no one can...so we give up and eat our 

I adore Neal Adams theory, and will send him the Hobbit connection. I already asked him about the no horsetail in Australasia but he didn't answer.

Neal Adams proposed a mechanism of expansion, in which new mass is created by electron/positron pair production within the core of the Earth, ie: mass from energy.  He says….”you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.”


This guy could offer some answers so will send my hobbit clue piece to him.
CHRYSTAL FIBER WHISKERS
These could be used in the new energy systems. www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/milewski.htm  —John Milewski’s site on Superlight Theory, the neutrino fabric of the universe. Superkinetic, Inc. where he is currently working on a revolutionary new electric light bulb based on using a single crystal fiber as a filament. "Whiskers", (Whisker Crystals) a technical slang word for Single Crystal Fibers, which are 10 times stronger than piano wire, fiberglass and carbon or boron, the aerospace materials. Whiskers are high purity single crystals grown in or on one axis so they form a fiber material. We grow these by what is known as the V.L.S. process which stands for Vapor, Liquid, Solid. In our process, the feed material is a vapor, in gaseous form, a liquid is the catalyst, and the final crystal being grown is the solid. For example, when we are growing silicon carbide the vapor feed contains a carbon bearing gas methane (basically natural gas) and silicon bearing gas, silicon monoxide. The catalyst is a metal material like iron alloys or stainless steel in a fine powdered form. At high temperature e.g. 1400°C – 2561°F, the metal catalyst melts and dissolves some of the carbon and silicon from the gas stream.
John Hutchison (crystal batteries) needs to collaborate with John Milewski.

Basically this article describes a superconducting like condition that can be
induced through sound or an electrical wave that creates a condition of
reduced or no resistance in wires - hence superconductivity. This condition
results from setting up a Standing Wave in the conductor and hence zero
point energy effects. I officially propose that Superconductivity is a condition that is controlled by the spacing of the atoms that results in a coherent coulomb wave. Further that this condition can under the right circumstances be induced in almost any pure or amorphous material or element. Additionally, that this condition can occur naturally like in David Hudson' monoatomic precious elements and secondly can be induced with standing waves that effect the
spacing of the atoms. The monoatomic noble or gases are also known for there ability to generate coherence in gases - hence Laser's. http://keelynet.com/interact/archive/00000377.htm

[henry]

lucy in the sky with diamonds. love will lift us up. 

[Francis]

KW is wrong. The evidence is clear. Life does not arise from non-living  matter.  DNA was composed by a creative intelligence. It did not spontaneously arise.

[Francis]

Why do smart people like Wilber and Aristotle cling to this idea of spontaneous generation? Sure, it seems obvious enough. But clearly, Aristotle had very little evidence that mice were created from hay. Now that we have the evidence to show that mice only come from other mice, people want to say: "oh, just leave the hay there for billions of years and the mice will be spontaneously generated, given enough time."

The whole notion of spontaneous generation hinges on the idea that there is a natural tendency for matter to go from disorganised to organized. But the thermodynamic rule, the so called law of entropy indicates just the opposite. So we're left in the indefensible position of postulating that life arose on its own when the laws of nature were different.

No one can predict what science will yield but time and time again, the most obvious so called insights by smart people are proven wrong. The question then becomes, are we going to follow where the evidence leads or are we going to disregard science when it contradicts our 'intuition' This is the part that I truly love; the shock of reality. Science is shocking. When science contradicts intuition and all attempts to reconcile them are fruitless, people are tempted to choose sides. Often these things are eventually reconciled. Perhaps someday they will all be. In the interim, the intuitives and the scientists are left to battle it out over each and every issue.

[Jana]

Humans are in the Universe so Universe creates Humans is all I am saying. Nothing spontaneous about it...it is billions of years of mistakes to end up with the most craziest creature possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ylrPfLxFI&feature=related  —Coast to Coast with Neal Adams.
#5 he goes into his matter creation bit.

Michael Cremo has been great at documenting the anomalous scientific evidence challenging the standard views on human evolution. His views on evolution and spirituality are crap though.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7133833522605226113

Cremo is saying there is an angelic force, a morphogenic field, a non corporal "idea" that descends into matter.
I am saying spirit is emergent "with" matter. Spirit is the organizational principle of living-matter.

One wonders if the same forces that build planets from beginning to end, also build species from beginning to end. They are interrelated in cause and effect.

[jimtzu]

i think the idea of spontaneous generation is an attempt to answer the tricky question of where did the FIRST of anything come from. 

[Francis]

I got to about half way through part 6. I understand now that he is claiming that the earth is growing is mass and volume. Buckminster Fuller wrote somewhere that planets grow in mass, heat up and eventually become stars. I asked my physics teacher about it, Professor Delano and he assured me that the earth was cooling down. Delano was an expert in astronomy and I felt that his opinion represented the scientific consensus.

I don't buy the idea that dinosaurs needed less gravity to be sucessful. His analogy about tall buildings is right. Steel made possible the tall building. But tendons have some of the same properties of steel and so I think that dinosaurs with strong tendons could thrive in high gravity. Regardless of bone structure.

I've never liked the big bang theory, because of the singularity that it postulates. But I don't think he's really got the goods to refute it. Then again no one really has the goods to confirm it either.

The protron is not 1800 times the size of an electron. It's 1800 times the mass. There's a big difference. Positrons and electrons have the same mass but opposite charge.

Making an analogy to a cotton bloom does not prove that you can change a positron into a proton. Interesting idea though, it needs to be tested. This is like Bohm's idea of enfolded matter. See Wilber's Holographic Paradigm.

But you really don't have to show that any mass is added to the earth for it to grow in volume. As I've said almost all matter expands in volume when heated, even thought the mass stays the same. I think the idea that it has grown in volume is more plausible than the idea that it has grown in mass and volume.  

He's quite right about the interdisciplinary lack of communication due to specialized jargon. Science has become like the tower of Babel story.
 

[Francis]

i think the idea of spontaneous generation is an attempt to answer the tricky question of where did the FIRST of anything come from. 

Tricky is right. Because intellect is a process of sorting, then you need more than one thing to use it. So the intellect perhaps is actually useless in trying to tackle this problem.

Sir Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) had basically the same view of abiogenesis that I do. He's been roundly attacked for saying so. Certainly not all of his comments were verifyable. He famously remarked that "A hurricane in a junkyard won't make a 747"

But I wonder. How many of these adherents to abiogenesis can match the scientific distinction of Sir Hoyle? Check this guy's resume!

[Jana]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89116/The-Sea-of-Energy-in-Which-the-Earth-Floats-Edition-4
"Physicists today believe that cosmic radiation consist primarily of protons and, some heavier nuclei. At times they pack a maximum allop of around 100 quadrillion electron volts. Coming continuously, with slight variations in time, their radiation have a uniform directional isotropy. The earth is therefore surrounded in an atmosphere of radiations with the cosmic rays coming continually to the earth from all directions. There may be a slight deflection of the weaker rays by the earth's magnetic field. There is every indication that our sun is not the source of any appreciable amount of these radiations. The origin, therefore, is from the universe as a whole. The total energy of cosmic radiation is more than the entire luminous output of all the stars and nebulae of the universe combined. Unlimited power is being delivered to everyone's doorstep."

There is 40000 tons of conventional material fallen to earth from space each year. A lot of this would be iron.

Coronal Mass Ejections are large clouds of gas and plasma ejected into space by the Sun. These ejections release billions of tons of material into interplanetary space, and often reach speeds of over 500 km/sec. These ions would collect in the earth's EMF and combine with the atmosphere to form ? elements that add to the mass of the earth.

We also have to consider the continuous generation of classical matter from cosmic rays interacting with potential particles. The quantum vacuum is said to be the densest part of the universe, and our known world of matter is said to float in this sea of infinitely dense potential particle fluctuation slipping in and out of existence. (see Walter Russell on the density issue). In this sense the Dirac/Adams generation of matter through cosmic ray interference/interaction could easily account for bodies in space accumulating matter over time. The amount of mass created would rise during supernova events and during the superstorm blasts of cosmic rays from the galactic core.

Whether the planetary bodies are gaining weight can be easily proved if their orbits get further away from the sun over the course of the planets life.