Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageExpanding Earth Theory In Relation to Underwater Cities

By RobotGod     Mar 3, 2007 in World
The two are related.
If we look at the expanding Earth theory...(Before we get going here, people confuse what they call the movement of techtonic plates that slide, with what is really happening. That is the earths expansion and growth, pushing out from the center. They "kinda" slide and move as they are reacting to the outward growth from beneath them.) So if we look at the expanding earth theory, we say that the Earth's core reactor at the center is churning out energy and pumping magma etc. Also with this theory, we surmise that there was not a "pangea" that allowed animals to "continent hop", but rather at an early date there was signifigantly less water. Think of the whole planet more or less as the shallow end of the pool, as far as being on land is concerned.(Yes there is a reason that we now have a TON of water, but I am a bit tired and cant remember it.)
Well as the planet grew outward, it of course raised alot of its land mass higher then some other areas....It created large basins for one thing, that we call the ocean beds...
Isn't it interesting that we have been consistantly finding largely INTACT cities under water? And isnt it interesting that they are always near a coastline?
Most people assume they fell in the water through a catastrophe. It is a very human leap in judgement. But it makes no sense. They are too intact for that. Also, we know that in general, cities do not just fall into the ocean even in a catastrophe. It just doesnt wash.
The cities did not fall...The land rose around them. Probably long after they were not inhabitated any longer. And of course the water level increased on the planet.
In short, it supports and lends credence to the theory completely. In fact it makes the argument much stronger.
Your thoughts?
More about Expanding earth, Underwater, Cities
Latest News
Top News