Expanding Earth vs The Giants

[durabone]

It's a weird connection, I know. More of a report of a confluence of four things.

1) Cremo's work on millions of years old 'human' artifacts
2) This expanding Earth theory we saw on here a few weeks back (The ocean floors are < 60 million years old?!?)
3) I read in a Russian quantum physics book that Gallileo discovered that we cannot simply double the size of a human without the bones shattering.

- and -

4) This very weird angle that Stanley Deyo's website has on the giants :P

Giants like those supported by such websites would had to have had a lower G force, or bones much thicker according to Gallileo.

Sorry if this sounds close to pop science. The real question I'd like to know is whether this expanding Earth theory and also its reported very young age of the ocean floor, has any creedence. thanks.

 

[Laura]

Funny, I've just started reading a book about giants.

Anyway, there is a reason for the young age on the ocean floor - constant turnover of emerging magma. It's basically the movement of tectonic plates subducting over there, melting, emerging over here. I have a book about it somewhere and I'll see if I can find it and quote the relevant passage about what goes on under the oceans.

 

[Tigersoap]

That's weird I am working on something with Giant bodies and clouds in it

 

[rs]

3) I read in a Russian quantum physics book that Galileo discovered that we cannot simply double the size of a human without the bones shattering.

- and -

4) This very weird angle that Stanley Deyo's website has on the giants :P

Giants like those supported by such websites would had to have had a lower G force, or bones much thicker according to Galileo.

Sorry if this sounds close to pop science. The real question I'd like to know is whether this expanding Earth theory and also its reported very young age of the ocean floor, has any credence. thanks.

The problem with any discussion about bones to me is that it seems as if the basic premise is fundamentally wrong. All of the discussion about bones has treated them as a static object where the load bearing properties are solely dependent on the compressive strength of the underlying material and the dimensions of the bones themselves. However this ignores the reality that bones are actually active living objects that are constantly being created and destroyed according to the active forces placed upon them. In other words, the bones themselves interact with their usage.

There has been this new series on one of the Discovery Channels about dinosaurs and one of the surprising factoids to come out in that series is that apparently the bones of some of these behemoths were not like our bones, but contained fibers which dramatically increased their strength like the fibers in fiberglass or other composite materials increase the strength of those materials. In other words, the fundamental issue with dinosaurs (that they are too big for their skeletons to support them) is yielding to science once you open your mind to the apparent reality that they existed, therefore it was possible.

Like so many things in modern "science", many things are impossible until you know how to do it or until you know how it was done. Then it becomes obvious.

 

[MusicMan]

We notice that in the centres of the oceans are ridges running north south. I posit that these are due to earth expansion. Each time an expansion event occurs, a new ridge forms and pushes aside the former ridges.
In the Atlantic Ocean, we have the Gulf Stream, a circulatory current which gives Europe its currently pleasant climate.
If the planet undergoes another expansory episode, and the Ocean ridges rise, will this cut off the Gulf Stream, and initiate another ice age in Europe?
Such an event may well have killed off the Giants, and left them with buttercups half-chewed in their mouths, frozen in perma-frost.

 

[aaronfransen]

Seems to me that the idea of an expanding Earth and giants would actually go hand in hand.

As the earth collected more mass (for whatever reason) the gravity would increase, so the animal life would shrink to compensate, much like how dinosaurs went from massive creatures whom we cannot understand how their circulatory systems worked if gravity was like it is today, to, well, birds.

 

[MusicMan]

What killed the Giants?
My guess: A rapidly advancing Ice Age, seeing as how reptiles are cold blooded, would not have been able to warm up enough to be able to forage, and would die of hunger if they did not freeze to death first.
There is an island up in the Arctic circle which consists entirely of the bones of massive tropical animals. Might have been Velikovsky where I read that.