Another "reason" given why artifacts get buried in the earth is due to "gravity".  I'm not sure if I completely buy that one either.  It'd take an awful lot of pressure to pull an entire layer of earth down by a few feet.  The more likely scenario is that it was steadily covered up, not pulled down.

Another (more "woo-woo") type of information that came to me about this subject was from a "dream" I had a few months ago.  I dreamed of an advanced civilization that lived on a planet, who's surface was all water.  When I asked why their planet was like that, one of the people replied, "That's how old our planet is.  Our world and civilization have successfully advanced together, and this is what happens to living planets when they evolved over billions of years.  If they are maintained and sustained, the surface lands get covered with water."  Unfortunately, I forgot to ask how they grew their food, if there wasn't any land.  But then again, I'm not sure if they even needed that kind of food anymore.  They were "physical" beings, yet extremely wise in attitude.  Their cities hovered above the water, from what I saw in the dream.   Anyway, it's only a dream, but it was vivid and this thread made me think about it, so I thought I'd share.

The earth is going to go through another huge growth phase when we enter the photon belt again.

Now I don't say I subscribe to everything proposed in this theory but a convincing argument is made. But where is all the mass coming from? What about the water? But look at the way the continents fit together on all sides.

Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

The Moon
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip03.html

Mars
http://www.continuitystudios.net/marsmov02.html

Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw this thread about a week ago, and looked at the video's and they were interesting.  Personally, it felt like it was true, I don't know why other scientists assail that line of thought so much.  As far as where the Earth gets its material for this growth, my first thought was that the Earth is simply becoming less dense and is directed toward the etherial.

The whole puzzle piece thing only makes sense if the sea floor was liquid at one time (when the contintents seperated?) and then solidified under the oceans of water. The Earth may have recieved mass from an extra-terrestrial impact which broke apart the solid crust and was absorbed into the core. If the outer layer of the earth's solid crust was water ice, it may have melted and distributed into the newly created voids.

Perhaps the object was another, smaller water rich planet maybe even containing the life we know as dinosaurs. Which would explain why such large animals existed (less gravity), and why they all died off so quickly. Wouldn't be surprised if the moon is somehow related and we could very well find fossils on the moon. 

Maybe the moon used to be a planet, which discharged a great amount of energy when it became too close to the earth and the difference in potential broke down the insulating effect of space.  The discharge was absorbed by earth and converted energy to matter. Somthing conceptually along those lines if you get what I'm saying. Physics-wise I have no clue how to solidify these ideas - they're just concepts.

Remember, at some point in time the earth probably had no liquid water at all, and may have been a solid rock encased in ice. This would be especially true if the earth was smaller (less internal pressure=less internal heat engine. )

A solid ice sphere in space could have many potential effects. I would think a near absolute zero degree super-conductive spere in space would attract a whole crapload of energy and information. This could lead to the planets own self-awareness (which if fragmented by some collision, could lead to our own seperate identities as well as individual counciousness - (which the earth is currently repairing and relinking through tools such as the WWW?)

fun stuff!

anyway, lot's of far-out possibilities how our planet reached it's current condition........

"So, what appears to happen is that when there's a sudden influx of energy (ie. he mentioned the 62,000,000? year cycle of evolution that we are currently in the middle of), the earth spontaneously increases in its physical size, sort of in a sudden moment. And in fact, some of these craters that appear to be (from meteors) are actually uprisings from the interior of the earth.  ....  ...because there's this surge of magma and so fort that comes out from inside...."

listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbLH7O4qGJE

  J

"time keeping would have to expand with the earth"

I think I understand your premise, but that may be inaccurate.

I we use the Prime Meridian as a reference point, then it would not matter if the earth was 10 feet in diameter, or 10,000 miles, the only thing that can alter time (physically) is rotational speed.

In Mech. engineering this is known as surface speed; circumference x revolutions per minute, day etc.

Gravity however will certainly change, if that was what you were getting at, then I do agree. Gravity and time do seem to be inextricably linked, so that does make sense.

     J

The odd thing is, time-keeping would have to expand with the earth so the expansion thing includes much more than just the earth.

Remember that evidence exists to suggest that one Earth year used to be 360 days.  Why else would ancient Judaic and other calendars establish a 360-day calendar if the actual year was 365.25 days?  Does it make any sense to put the seasons off by 5 1/4 days more with each passing year?

http://timeemits.com/HoH_Articles/Sumer … ar_360.htm

I don't buy the idea that the reason for these 360 day calendars is because it is for either 12 lunar cycles x 30 days each, or 12 zodiacs x 30 days each.  The lunar cycles are 29 days (+12 hrs +44mins), and the length of each zodiac constellation is inaccurate.  Maybe something changed a while back.

fyi on LA and Southern Cal area water supply etc
or lets just borrow it from other states that don't need that much water

Yeah, I've seen the rivers and such that we "borrow" water from.  They don't look like they could supply a city of Barbies with water, little lone this metropolis.  Byw, which state would that be that doesn't need that doesn't need that much water?  I have friends all over the states (including Colorado) and lack of clean water seems to be an issue everwhere.

True.. the development and historic agreements to bring water from the Colorado River to California in many cases have left the states it runs through with dry areas.. However I'm guessing that is not the only cause for water shortage in some areas.

ON the amount water on planet earth... I watched a mainstream science program http://www.history.com/shows.do?action= … eId=242366 this week that discussed theories on how earth has the water it does.. one idea is a from extra terrestrial .  Sources.. ie asteroids containing carbon dioxide falling to earth. There is no definitive answer to the amount of water on the planet at this time. Also the continental drift theory came from a meteorologist in 1912 not a geologist and until the 1960s it was not accepted or widely thought of that the continents had broken apart and spread.

Interesting in terms of human civilization, scientific theories and how being one of the herd in the scientific community could waste years down many garden paths.

fyi on LA and Southern Cal area water supply etc
or lets just borrow it from other states that don't need that much water..

http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/index.htm

http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/histor … oriver.htm

My question is sinkholes..as resources are used up from underground what is holding up the earth ?
http://www.desertusa.com/colorado/color … loriv.html

On another note, the verse in the bible Genesis 1:6 would seem to imply that from that writer's perspective the 'water' was there before the 'sky'... and the 'sky' was created and it divided the water above and the water below.  It's perhaps nothing, but in any case I've always thought it to be strange how it defines the two locales of water: