yes, more information than -'oh my goodness' would be helpful, as I was just passing on what I watched,
and with no knowledge of this process, I believed what they said.
This proves the mountains are not from the earth
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
yes, more information than -'oh my goodness' would be helpful, as I was just passing on what I watched,
and with no knowledge of this process, I believed what they said.
Mountains aren't caused by alien mountain droppers or tectonic plates crashing into each other. They are caused by impurities getting into the Earth's pores which cause the Earth to send white blood cells to those areas to fight off infection. This creates mountains and mountain ranges as the puss builds up and attempts to eject the impurity. Volcanoes are the end result and craters are often what's left when the Earth gets a really big mountain or tries to pop one.
I call it the pubescent Earth theory. Oh yes, and Lord Ram confirmed this to me yesterday when I talked to one of his incarnations, which happened to be, oddly, a ram. The ram was curious and attentive.
I call it the pubescent Earth theory. Oh yes, and Lord Ram confirmed this to me yesterday when I talked to one of his incarnations, which happened to be, oddly, a ram. The ram was curious and attentive.
"This proves the mountains are not from the earth"
Of course nothing here now was from here ever. Every atom of it is portable, every atom of it has been recycled countless times in the infinite cycle. All the matter in the universe is always in the process and never finished or static. There is no place in the universe to stay.
Of course nothing here now was from here ever. Every atom of it is portable, every atom of it has been recycled countless times in the infinite cycle. All the matter in the universe is always in the process and never finished or static. There is no place in the universe to stay.
As I said before, you stick to the lectures and what they say, while I give a different thing by finding the defects in their postulations.
They have not this possibility in their minds when they postulate about the origin of these mountains: the possibility that such mountains were the portions of some mountains that had broken up in the past.
The idea is that there is a missing period of some million years between a layer below and a layer above, and such missed period is resembled only by a line: there is no layer resembling this missed period. And they said they are puzzled about this, and none could certainly know the explanation.
If we put in mind that such mountains are the portions of some planet that was destroyed in the past, then this problem will be solved.
1- If we imagine now a planet with a mountain on it, and this mountain was a portion of a planet that was destroyed in the past (before one million years for example) --> so here there is a time difference between this planet and the mountain on it : a million years difference.
2- If this planet is broken up into many pieces, and one of the pieces includes that mountain together with a portion of that planet where that mountain is set: the time differenc is preserved as one million years difference.
3 -If this piece (the mountain+ the portion of the destroyed planet on which that moutain was situated) falls on a new planet--> the result will be two differences in time between the layers and the problem of the missed rocks as they call it, will be solved.
The old mountain
The piece of the destroyed planet on which that mountain was set
The new planet site where tha piece fell.
And the differences in age will be preserved and explained in this way.
If I write this with light not with letters, you will not agree unless a geologist (and in fact all geologists) tell you, while they are unaware of this idea.
Mountains
Last edited:
Is that the good news or the bad news?
It sounds like you are promoting that we will eventually travel between the galaxies/stars, and we won't feel any pain or care how long the trip takes.
I've heard some pretty nutty stuff in my life but this takes the cake. I mean most scientists agree that Earth was formed from matter floating around in space about 4 billion years ago but mountains falling from the sky? I'm not sure if someone needs some serious help from the psychiatric community or is just playing the fool for fun.
That would make almost every impact a mountain, some just much larger than others. The one that took out th dinos was as big as Everest, and then some. I doubt it was totally vaporised but it would have been made into marble sized pieces.
The whole asteroid belt would quality as a source of 'mountains'. That most are high in iron content would point to it coming from a larger body originally
Now you're an expert in geology and tectonics? Didn't bother looking up that word I suggested, did you. You have no understanding of what you're talking about. Unconformities are very common all over the planet, they're just a break in the continuity of the rock layers, indicating deposition over an older erosional surface. That's all. They certainly are NOT evidence that mountains are fragments of a former planet that fell to earth. That idea's just dumb. Mountain-sized rocks do fall to earth sometimes, but they don't make mountains, they make big holes and do a lot of damage.
''mountains are not from Earth in origin; and that most of the mountains came to our earth from the outer space as portions of some destroyed past planets''
If they are debris from outer space, they should create craters, not mountains.
If they are debris from outer space, they should create craters, not mountains.
Yes, but have you been to outer space, any probing? It's ok, you can tell us, you're among friends....sort of. youarenotalone.
I am not expert in geology, but what you answered in fact is only giving the geologic word for the missing time period represented only by a line. The explanations that they give to the causes are not correct; this can be explained as I said by origin from planets with different ages.
How could the erosion eat a complete layer homogeneously so that no remnants of it remained: this layer which is estimated as some hundred millions of years?
While if they came from another planet: such missing period can be understood and is reasonable.
Then you gave another idea: if a mountain sized piece falls, then it will leave a big hole and a lot of damage instead of a mountain: this is another point and we said this happened in the early formation of the earth when its crust was still semi-solid and could absorb the impact and there may be other factors.
If it traveled from another solar system then its age should be in the 10's of billions of years, at the very least, over 100B is not unreasonable considering the distances in space. I have my doubts that a 'frozen mountain' would vaporize 'in an instant' but being totally melted at some point would allow it to reform as a rock with zero years on it.
Obviously, but you think you understand things you don't, or you wouldn't have asked the following question:
It wasn't homogeneous, nor is it likely to have been a single layer, and it eroded some of the layers that remain too, erosion doesn't just remove a layer then stop. If you could remove the layers above the unconformity and see the surface the later deposition happened on, you'd see that it too was partially eroded. Erosion has removed lots of layers all over the planet, there is in fact no place on earth where the complete geologic column is represented. Every long enough sequence of rock layers will have at least one unconformity in it.
Your hypothesis also leaves unexplained how these mountains that landed on earth when it was in a liquid state failed to get mixed into the melt but somehow retained their integrity until the liquid under them solidified. They should at least show signs of strong metamorphosis at the unconformity, but they don't. The rock layer immediately above the great unconformity exposed in the Grand Canyon is the Cambrian-age Tapeats sandstone formation (beach sand, in fact), resting on what was originally called the Vishnu schist, but more recent work has shown it to be a very complex mixture of older sedimentary and volcanic rocks metamorphosed into a variety of schists and gneisses. The Tapeats sandstone could not have been placed there when the underlying rocks were liquid, or it would no longer be sandstone.
Anybody know what ruins these are? The mountain in the background should be a self-portrait of Christ, lol
I was sort of wondering if it really looked like that or is it a Photoshop production. The size is about right, lol. The 'ruins' would be akin to 'finger-art'.
