Please watch the documentary first, then comment

I would like to introduce the following concept.

If we have been led to believe that our planet is other than what was described in the video above, our ability to expand on the knowledge in the video never grows.

Conversely, once you understand the video above, what sort of questions arise that could help us discover our possible planetary history?

For instance, given the idea that our planet used to be a ball of iron covered by water, what was it before then and why?

What is the entire evolution of our planet?

For example, perhaps our planet, long, long ago was the simplest element that would have existed at the beginning - hydrogen -- essentially, a star.

Over time, that ball of hydrogen -- would it create helium, then the next element in the table of the elements and eventually, at some point create elements so heavy that they would cause all atmospheric gases to no longer stretch out so far away from the center -- from so much mass, perhaps a ball of iron, would the structure now resemble the beginnings of a planet?

And would that first version of a planet look barren or would it be covered with water? Or would it get covered with water later?

We have to ask ourselves about the temperatures that were happening at that time both at the center of the planet and at the edge, the mass and gravity, the elements it was composed of at the time and what would happen with those competing elements all with different densities and weights and temperatures and boiling points during these formation periods.

To really understand the process, we would need to figure out why a star even exists in the first place -- in other words, a star by definition is hydrogen collected together in one place getting hot enough to ignite and heavy enough to collect more hydrogen and ignite that too -- eventually creating the next element in the table.

What is the fundamental force that causes things to come together? That force is what makes hydrogen happen in the first place instead of just sub atomic particles.

And where do the sub atomic particles come from?

Really, understanding the creation of our planet and its evolution depends on our knowledge of how the very tiniest particles came about and how the forces that act on them exist and work in the first place.

Without knowledge of this type of elemental physics that creates chemistry in the first place, we can lay no claim to what the possible history of our planet is other than what we can observe from our own lifespans, our written history and our observations about other planetary bodies out there.

We know so little as of yet, but at least this video points us in the correct direction to begin to ask the questions we should ask to know more, such as;

What was our orbit like before earth was this size and density and therefore what was the temperature like and the atmosphere? How about the moon; if we were covered with water, how did the moon effect us then?

Were the length of a day or a year or a moon cycle different than they are now?

When did the moon arrive and why? What is the moon? Is it a hollowed out old planet that was brought here or does it just orbit us because it is small enough density wise to get trapped in our orbit; and does it have one side more dense than the other to make it orbit with only one side facing us? Since mercury does that with the sun as well, is it constructed similarly to the moon? Would mercury orbit us too if it was close enough?

Begin asking new questions based on the above model and see where it takes you and what we might uncover by doing so.

Raising a BS flag is essentially a nothing statement in this situation. If you have watched the entire video and disagree, please state an intelligent comment for debate, otherwise take your BS flag and put it where it is more useful; not here.

Thirty minutes of stock footage and anti-science. Fuck you.

You are a confused, poorly educated moron, please go fuck yourself. You flat eart, space is fake assholes should be roiunded up and shot.

To the person who used disparaging terms towards myself for being a number of things which I am not.

The reason I asked people to first view the documentary in its entirety is because so often there are people on GLP who take one look at something, have no immediate reference for it in their mind, decide not to investigate but instead assign it another value that they do have a reference for and then judge it based on what was in their mind, not based on the content that is being provided.

The expanding earth has nothing to do with flat earth.

The expanding earth has to do with the idea that the earth is a sphere which grows over time.

Conversely, flat earth is a government psy-op designed to dupe people who may be used to discredit other conspiracy theorists by lumping them all in to one bucket.

If anyone says the words "anti-science" or even "anti-anything", that usually indicates a lack of having looked into what the other person is actually saying. The term "anti" is not a very descriptive one. It is much more descriptive to explain what something is in positive terms than to try to define it by what you say it is not.

The expanding earth model does not purport to be anti anything. It simply is a model of how earth evolved.

Conversely, the flat earth model purports to be anti- globe but has no explanation for the evolution of how a flat earth might have evolved scientifically or even a complete model of what exact shape a flat earth actually takes.

A globe earth is a complete model in that it describes a 3 dimensional shape that exists at one point in time.

A flat earth does not attempt to describe what it actually looks like in a three dimensional universe. It doesn't tell you what is under it or above it with any degree of depth. It fails to represent how it is a part of evolution or how any other planetary or stellar bodies might have evolved using the same rules of physics. It doesn't explain how a sun or moon suspend themselves in space or even if they are in a vacuum or in an atmosphere, what they are composed of or how they got there. It simply is an incomplete model. As such, it doesn't even represent a theory because it is incomplete.

However, expanding earth does fulfill these expectations. It gives a description in full with an entire explanation within the 3 dimensions and also over time (aka the 4th dimension) for how it would evolve according to the known scientific rules of physics and chemistry.

Your comment is valueless in this context because you did not take the time to watch the documentary even though those are the only and explicit directions for anyone who comments on this thread. You are unable to follow simple instructions and hold yourself to a model of human decency in a social construct as of yet. I would advise you to seek some help in establishing yourself as a member of a society of humans who can respect one another and have the patience to learn from one another instead of simply acting like a child who has zero manners.

Thank you.

--M