The earth is growing

Neil Adams on Pangea
www.nealadams.com...
where he says among other things:

The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?

Neil Adams on dinosaur extinction
www.continuitystudios.net...
...and he has another take on it than me. Perhaps even a more plausible one, since not all dino's were big....

In order to see and read everything this "nothing but a comic book artist" has to say, you'll have to register. However, ATS rules and regulations prohibits me from asking you to, so this will be fully up to you. I'm not payed by him or in any other way promoting anything but his theories, on the basis of scientific development in itself, so suit yourself.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


I think that it's going to be very hard to convince you one way or the other. Which is okay. I would just encourage you to ask yourself how you decide what to believe. In this case, what is it about the expanding earth that is more appealling than the non-expanding one?

I've enjoyed this exercise, but now I am worn out.

reply to post by OnceReturned


NP dude. I have enjoyed this exercise myself. But the point is that things like gravity and expanding universe, black matter and pangea contra "growing earth" are all theories which needs fuel and some serious "thinking outside the box", not nessasarily conventional science. We have not been able to understand it using conventional science. I'm definitely not an expert in any of this, and I posted this more for the hell of it, than anything else. But it's a fact that just as the Americas and Europe/Africa fits together, the other side, Western Americas and East Asia, also fits nicely together when you put the pieces of the puzzle together. And as the Atlantic Ocean grows, so does the Pacific, and still we see nothing much happening to the continents themselves. A plausible way to explain this is through this theory presented by among others Neal Adams. That the Earth is indeed growing, mostly like a balloon covered with paint. As you blow it up, the paint cracks up and we see continents, islands and such. The age of the ocean floors is much younger than the surface continents, both in the Pacific and the Atlantic and the other oceans. Everywhere you find stretch marks, whether here or there. It was fun discussing it all. Cheers.

Besides, now I have a bunch of new cool sources for my science class project....

Somehow something happens inside the nucleus of the Earth that produce heat and makes the Earth grow. Nuclear processes, which produce less density matter which needs more space. Like matter can turn into energy, it is from energy mass once came from in the first place; Woah the Great Light, Big Bang!!, so it's a quantum process, where energy turns matter huger, for it is humongous, both the Earth and the Universe(es) are astronomical in dimention. It "blows it up", and like the good book says, As in Heaven. So on Earth. I believe the Earth grows, just like the Universe is sltill growing, and even accelerating as such, due to Big Bang, or like I say, the the Primordeal Light. And down here, the continents slide on top of this growing ball of glowing fungoo, growing and changing density due to heat and nuclear processes, just like everything else in the world. Yes, for the core of the Earth is hot, just like Hell will be hot (for some of us sometime in the near future, there will be a sea or ocean on Earth that will burn for thousands of years, a volcanic pit swallowing and puking thousands of degrees lava, a lake full of magma and lava), and heat or temperature makes things change and, in almost all cases, grow in size, like one piece of wood turns into several cubic miles of gas, and hydrogen turns into helium on the Sun, ever growing, until at some point in a couple of billion years this process will have reached status quo, and the process quantifies, so it grows into a thing that is so big it will swallow many of the planets current trajectories, until it ends up after an implosion like a small thing which has pushed enormous energy and accelerating particles into space.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Point is: There's no subductions, only stretchmarks. Equalise mountain rise on one hand and concidering stretch marks, via the continents and sea beds, subtract Himalayas etc. -- add -- What what young seabeds shows, and the only reason we belong is.... This pile of mock is growing, If you dissagree you'd better have been blowing rockets telling us otherwise....

And... We won't blow up. We simply grow. AND gravity produce evoillusion

[edit on 13/1/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Ok.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
After you've watched the film. Take some tyime and concider this: The universe is expanding, hence, the negative pressure is building up, since the universe is basically made out of vacuume. What happens if you throw something into a vacuume? It grows, and the gravitation forces grow accordingly within the material you throw in.

Negative pressure is not building up because the universe is expanding. The universe is expanding because of something like positive pressure within it, this pressure is a function of the cosmological constant, and is caused by dark energy. The universe is being pushed apart by a positive force within it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, when you throw something into a vacuum, the vacuum exerts negative pressure on it which would cause it to expand. However, gravity draws mass together. The reason that planets and other objects in the universe don't get ripped apart in the vacuum is because the gravity holding them together is much stronger than the vacuum pulling them apart. How do you think they formed? Why do you think the atmosphere isn't immediately ripped off the earth? The answer is gravity. Also, you seem to be implying that when something expands in a vacuum its gravity "grows accordingly." No. Gravity is a function of energy density, and in normal cases that means matter and mass. When something expands in a vacuum its mass does not increase, and therefore its gravity does not increase. It spreads out, increasing volume and decreasing in density.


This is nonsense.

OK smarty pants, you know what you are talking about, eh? OK, define for us the difference between mass and matter. Go ahead, I dare ya.

Then define for us what exactly gravity IS. Go ahead, I dare ya. Your highly regarded "science" is backwards on a lot of things. What is that cosmological constant? How does gravity have "action at a distance"?

If gravity is the only force in the universe, what indicates these galaxies are expanding? Is it the "red shift"? Define THAT for us. Check out Halton Arp's research on that matter.

The earth is filled with magma, right? How do we "know" that? Because lava comes out of volcanoes? This is comparable to popping a zit, and assuming that indicates your whole body is filled with pus. Anyone ever been down in that magma? Didn't think so. In fact there is more evidence that the earth is hollow than there is indicating it is solid.

This guy's theory may be totally wrong. BUT. Answer me this: How did those giant dinosaurs walk? In today's gravity, they would be impossible. Therefore, either gravity was different long ago (There goes all your gravity theories out the window) or there is something else up. What is it? This is glossed over by your "science", they cannot explain it. In fact, they need to keep making up bs like dark energy and dark matter, invisible fairy dust without which their gravity theories are obviously totally wrong. When we look at other galaxies, figuring out the mass of the stars involved, the gravity theory states that they would fly apart. But instead of thinking "hmm, maybe this gravity THEORY is somehow wrong" they say "I know! 99 percent of the universe is this magic stuff we cannot see! THERE! Gravity theory makes sense again, see? "

SO, go ahead, define the difference between mass and matter, for starters...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by CaptChaos]

reply to post by CaptChaos


Matter is a term that refers to the substance that bodies are made of. Matter is anything that has both mass and volume. The term matter and its definition do not play an important part in physics, because they are not terms in any equation. In some sense, matter is not a technical term and is fairly arbitrary. We percieve a difference between substantive things(like tables and chairs and planets) and non-substantive things like light or the vacuum of space. It is a good idea to have a word for substantive things so we can talk about them, to this end the word matter came to be. It is a linguistic convenience more than anything, and if you're an educated english speaking person you have at least a functional sense of what matter means. It is the substance of bodies that take up space; it's what takes up the space - more or less.

Mass is not a thing it is a property; it is the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field. In common parlance mass is usually used to mean weight, but this is not technically correct. Mass is - most technically - a term in equations. It determines the acceleration of an object under the application of a force, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is used in many equations. From an Einsteinian perspective - when considering gravity - the best way to describe mass is to say that it is the degree to which a body bends the spacetime around it. Mass is a property and not a thing, and a term in equations more than it is anything else(Obviouly it has some manifestation in physical reality - which I suppose is what it "really" is - because it plays a part in the way that the universe works, but by far the best way to describe it is in math).

Both of these are just words, and natural languages like english are often incapable of capturing the technicalities, or the true nature of, physical things. That is why physics is done in math. Attacking the definition of the words in english, or trying to find difficulties in defining them in an exact way, is barking up the wrong tree. The words are not meant to be exact representations of physical phenomena, they are merely functional tools of communication. The math is what most truely represents these phenomena.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Yes, when you throw something into a vacuum, the vacuum exerts negative pressure on it which would cause it to expand. However, gravity draws mass together. The reason that planets and other objects in the universe don't get ripped apart in the vacuum is because the gravity holding them together is much stronger than the vacuum pulling them apart.

Bodies are ripped appart all the time in the vacuume of space. However most objects inside our known universe are relatively stable, due to gravity among other things. Another property is rotation, showing how the diameter of the Earth is greater around the Equator than along the Earth Axis. Another example of how rotation is the force manipulating gravity, is how the planets are not "sucked" into the Sun, and how the Moon isnot rolling along the Earth, but is infact spiraling 'round the Earth in an ever increasing distance to the Earth, before one day it might leave Earth's gravitational pull in favour of the Sun. There are many ways to equate how gravity works, but exactly what it is, we still don't know. Every day new theories surface, and new parameters and properties are put into the equation. From Aristoteles via Newton to Einstein and onwards, shows how gravity has the ability to put grey hair on even our brightest minds. For every new discovery, new equations emerge. And gravity is relative to mass, acceleration, density, temperature, rotation, magnetism and even physical size, different kinds of radiation and many other properties, so gravity will probably continue to torment physicists forever.

How do you think they formed? Why do you think the atmosphere isn't immediately ripped off the earth? The answer is gravity.

Not quite. If the earth was the size of an apple, our atmosphere would be about as thick as the peel of that apple. The Earth's atmosphere is held together by gravity and a strong magnetic field, without these two properties you could have as much dark matter and dark energy, cosmological constants you'd like, and other miraculous solutions put into your equations, the Earth would be nonexisting or atleast without an atmosphere.

Also, you seem to be implying that when something expands in a vacuum its gravity "grows accordingly." No. Gravity is a function of energy density, and in normal cases that means matter and mass. When something expands in a vacuum its mass does not increase, and therefore its gravity does not increase. It spreads out, increasing volume and decreasing in density.

Greater objects are more likely to bump into eachother, hence, the greater an object is the more mass it will accumulate, and the greater acceleration it will induce uppon other objects, if the Sun was the size of a pea, the relative distance to the Earth would be greater and the lesser gravitational pull we would experience from the object. Physical size thereby is a factoryou'd have to concider when talking of gravity.

This is nonsense.

OK smarty pants, you know what you are talking about, eh? OK, define for us the difference between mass and matter. Go ahead, I dare ya.

A particle can have no mass, but still be made from matter. Photons are believed to have no mass, but still it is explained as physical objects made of matter. Mass is a way to explain things such as energy and relative weight, while matter is simply anything physical.

Then define for us what exactly gravity IS. Go ahead, I dare ya. Your highly regarded "science" is backwards on a lot of things. What is that cosmological constant? How does gravity have "action at a distance"?

Noone knows exactly what gravity is. But feel free to explain it if you know it....

If gravity is the only force in the universe, what indicates these galaxies are expanding? Is it the "red shift"? Define THAT for us. Check out Halton Arp's research on that matter.

Again, we don't know exactly what it is that holds the universe in one (growing) place. Has the universe always existed? What is energy, and where did matter come from? Matter can be turned into energy and energy can turn into matter with mass.

The earth is filled with magma, right? How do we "know" that? Because lava comes out of volcanoes? This is comparable to popping a zit, and assuming that indicates your whole body is filled with pus. Anyone ever been down in that magma? Didn't think so. In fact there is more evidence that the earth is hollow than there is indicating it is solid.

Magma is molten rock, but has a higher density than granite at sea level. Hollow Earth? Get real.... And you accuse me of talking nonsense.

This guy's theory may be totally wrong. BUT. Answer me this: How did those giant dinosaurs walk? In today's gravity, they would be impossible. Therefore, either gravity was different long ago (There goes all your gravity theories out the window) or there is something else up. What is it? This is glossed over by your "science", they cannot explain it. In fact, they need to keep making up bs like dark energy and dark matter, invisible fairy dust without which their gravity theories are obviously totally wrong. When we look at other galaxies, figuring out the mass of the stars involved, the gravity theory states that they would fly apart. But instead of thinking "hmm, maybe this gravity THEORY is somehow wrong" they say "I know! 99 percent of the universe is this magic stuff we cannot see! THERE! Gravity theory makes sense again, see? "

SO, go ahead, define the difference between mass and matter, for starters...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by CaptChaos]

No matter (pun intended) what one would say about gravity, it is one of the most illogical and mind bending things we can measure. How do we explain how black holes seem to affect even photons, with no mass? And how can such relatively small objects such as our Sun be able to bend light allowing us to see stars which should be covered by the same Sun? Is this universe or these universes simply a simulation, a thing which exists only in our minds? Do I even exist? Is this whole thing a sensory illusion?

Earth is growing and the outer core is swallowning water:

www.yr.no...

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


That was a timelapse video of the accumulation of sea ice in Norway. The earth is not growing and the crust is not swallowing water. The water is freezing and so the ice is accumulating.

Well,I have to debate this.

Every scientist and geologist whose bothered to look at it knows it's a whackjob theory that conflicts with all known data, astronomy, laws of gravity, physics, the geological record, etc

Only the indoctrinated ones that attended school in the U.S. this is what is taught in our university's here.

If a student of geology were to EVEN question a "learned" professor of geology,he would never get a degree.

It is basically "my way" or the highway.Once a Prof is tenured he can teach their propaganda to thousands of students and they will be indoctrinated to believing it also.

They'll tell you that the grand canyon was carved out by a river,but won't answer why the Mississippi isn't one or becoming one.

The Grand Canyon opposite sides match as if they were pulled apart.

There are scientists and geologists arounfd the world that are subscribing to this theory.

Russians,Chinese,Australians,Kiwi,Indian maybe not in the propaganda mills of the U.S. and Europe but in more free thinking countries that are realizing there may be something to it since Pangaea is piece of crap theory.

I have witness the earth growing larger,I have been in more earthquakes that I wish I never feel another one.The mountain range I live near is moving 1 inch a year to the west.That is 36 inches since I moved here.

The moon is 29-30 inches farther away than the day Armstrong stepped foot on it. I surmise that the earth has gained in circumference an equal amount too.

Has anyone heard of this Geologist and scientist?

Dr James Maxlow was born in Middlesbrough, England in 1949. His passion for geology no doubt was inherited from a family history of “ironstone workers” supplying iron ores mined from the Cleveland Hills, south of Middlesbrough, to the foundries and steel rolling mills of Middlesbrough during the 1800s.

He is not some "Whackjob"

He initially studied Civil Engineering at the then Swinburne College, but soon became disillusioned with engineering and redirected himself to a degree in Geology at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, graduating in 1971.James spent in excess of 25 years working as an exploration and mine geologist throughout much of Australia, gaining valuable field experience and knowledge, which he has since applied to research into his other passion – Earth Expansion.

During his academic years James met and communicated with many wonderful “expansionists” from around the world. Most notable of which was the late Professor Sam Warren Carey from Tasmania, the father of modern Earth Expansion, Yan Koziar from Poland, and Klaus Vogel from Germany, the father of modern Expanding Earth modeling studies. It was during his academic studies that Professor Carey “passed on” his Expanding Earth baton to James, an honor that he most cherishes.

Plate Tectonic Theory does maintain that the earth is expanding at the Mid-Ocean Ridges. Here there is no conflict between the two theories. To compensate for this expansion, the theory of subduction was developed. Subduction theory states that the created ocean crust later moves back into the earth at descending chutes, like a down escalator. Subduction theory has many problems and is widely disputed.

Subduction evidence is all in-direct and none is direct.

No object has ever been seen to be subducted. No object has ever been placed and measured being subducted. The radius of the earth is the final arbiter. The earth was accurately and precisely measured but once in 1983 and a second reading has never been taken.

In fact the major study published in 1993 found a consistent ¾” vertical rise of land sites (radius increase) but zeroed out the evidence as being unlikely.

Other than expressing my belief in the expanding earth theory and since the "subduction" theory is BS,I won't participate in this discourse anymore.

My belief will be proven the correct theory with obvious evidence soon to come for all,still alive,to see.When the whole planet,not the magnetic field,not the crust,but the whole planet flips on it's axis to re-balance itself.

It has many times during it existence as it grew and became out of balance.Not,"the magnetic field has flipped many times" crap.The field stays put the planet flips until it is back in balance.


[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


I saw this theory a few years ago and at first it seems to make sense, but then again any planet with oceans, if shrunk down and sucked dry of water, would eventually fit together.

Also, the theory requires the creation of massive amounts of new matter and that just doesn't happen.

So while the computer model looks nice and all I'm afraid it isn't nice enough to prove a science conspiracy or to even come close to explaining things as well as the theory of plate tectonics and Pangaea. For a theory to hold water against the established sciences it claims are wrong it really shouldn't require a revision of everything we know about the Universe and it should really come with some proof. We know that new matter doesn't just pop into being and would be able to detect such things if it did.

So no, I don't think the Earth is growing and if any evidence was compiled saying it was and managed to make it through peer review I'm sure the scientists would admit to being wrong all along. Scientists are not some sinister bunch defending their own beliefs, things have to be testable or verifiable and go through a rigorous peer review by numerous experts before being accepted.

There you go again.

If the conspirators say it isn't so,then it isn't so."We don't want to be seen as fools,were scientists and educators!"

So no, I don't think the Earth is growing and if any evidence was compiled saying it was and managed to make it through peer review I'm sure the scientists would admit to being wrong all along. Scientists are not some sinister bunch defending their own beliefs, things have to be testable or verifiable and go through a rigorous peer review by numerous experts before being accepted.

Here I'll provide some links this "whackjob" is a civil engineer.Maybe his explanation of why bridges across rivers fail/fall and damn across rivers and gorges fail /fall.

Wide Margin

Why were/are there ancient civilizations complete cities, found up in mountain ranges where no one lives today.And evidence of ancient seas and oceans there also,unless they were at a much lower altitude at one time.How did they get so high?SUBDUCTION?I don't think so.

I for one will not believe what "peers" say is proven theory,including subduction,since there is no DIRECT evidence only indirect evidence.
You want direct evidence of expansion?Use Google Earth and look at the "stretch" marks all across the Pacific ocean.The same areas that encompass the ring of fire and where earthquakes are a almost daily occurrence.

Look at the trail the Hawaiian islands left as the earth expanded and it ended up in the middle of the Pacific from its original position near Kamchatka peninsula.

Look at Tasmania.It is obvious to a blind man it was part of Australia,mate.How and why did it move to it's location today?It moved to that position during the expansion of the planet!

Instead up defending the institutionalized educators who defend their theory that has NO direct evidence why don't you explore the possibility that they are wrong?

Italian geologists have come to the conclusion that their peninsula and surrounding islands were mostly likely created by expansion.The rift valley is direct evidence that we can see today of a continent being ripped apart by expansion.The Aleutian island chain also show evidence of being created by expansion.

Look at the USGS site that shows the earthquake in the U.S. here.

Start at the Missouri area and then up the St.Lawrence seaway.Draw a line and see the quake activity.This is probably the very beginning of an expansion rift.

There is a lot of quake activity that if you look at it over a very longtime shows relationship.

If you want to see all the quakes on earth for the past 50 years,download this program and run it.Seismic Eruptions Update the quake info by going to the options and update hypocenters.

Run the program and adjust the dates to show the quakes where it runs faster (2 months/year) and watch the pattern that quakes happen and volcanoes erupt during the expansion process!

It isn't fast in human terms but it is happening.

The earth is expanding.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Oneolddude]

reply to post by Oneolddude


There is no evidence of a conspiracy and I think it a very dumb idea to claim that all the experts are in on some sinister plot that they do not benefit from supporting. If the Earth were growing some evidence of that would exist, particularly there would be detectable evidence of new matter being created from nothing and if the evidence said it was happening scientists would have no choice but to admit it. They would not benefit from the so-called deception in anyway.

Also, the absence of answers for every single detail of the way geology and plate tectonics works does not amount to proof for the belief that the Earth is growing. The fact that some things are still not well understood does not mean that one particular belief is true, only evidence supporting the theory can prove whether its true.

Crumbling bridges and infrastructures do not prove a growing Earth and are explainable through plate tectonics as plates shift and slip... however one does not even need plate tectonics to explain infrastructure as shoddy building materials, poor planning and other human errors are to blame the majority of the time.

Are you suggesting that simply because we're not sure why civilizations decided to build on Mountaintops it implies the Earth is growing? I think that's a MASSIVE leap of Faith and faith is not scientific. You claim you will not believe what the "peers" say, so you will believe a computer model of the expanding Earth but not the rigorously tested and investigated consensus of a multitude of scientists in their own FIELD OF EXPERTISE?!?!?! Are you going to say that doctors are covering up the existence of tiny gremlins who nest in your earlobes and claim that they are all defending germ theory as part of an elaborate conspiracy?

Plate tectonics and continental drift already explains how land masses break or drift apart and sea level rise and fall explains why some landmasses are now submerged and others have risen. The existence of Hawaii is hardly evidence of an expanding Earth.

I don't need to prove the established theories are right, they have already done that. If any evidence to the contrary emerged and had enough data to rival Plate Tectonics it would do so and become the dominant theory. It is up to the proponents of said theory to become geologists and experts and find the evidence to support it.

Again plate tectonics already explains how oceans and "rifts" form and there is no need for the Earth to be growing or for everything we know about matter (ie it does not get created out of nothing) to be wrong.

Conclusion: The Earth is probably not expanding. But I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary and if said evidence were submitted to and managed to survive the peer review process I would have to acknowledge it as true...

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

There are stretch marks and new seafloor in both atlantic and pacific oceans over vast distances, indicating that indeed Eurasia and Africa is moving away from the Americas. Evidence shows that the same is seen in the Pacific and all other oceans. Now where is the contractions that would naturally occur in land mass due to all continents moving appart from eachother, if not the whole planet is getting bigger? And how can new seafloor bend downwards into much denser matter without any excess material to be found? Inside Earth the positive pressure is extremely high, matter inside Earth is so dense, that if you took the inner core out from where it is now and placed it in empty space it would grow into many times it's size. IE no new matter would have to come out of this process, only temperature and density change.

OK I got completely lost in the OP and OnceReturned's debate but I have to say that was one of the most impressive debates I have seen on ATS ever. Anyways, here is my view.

I'm not going to use things like negative pressure and dark energy to prove my argument because these are things that I don't understand, and no humans understand. There are theories to the workings of dark energy and negative pressure but they are just speculation. We have never even done an experiment on dark energy.

I'm really wondering about the other planets. The video said, "If earth is expanding, the same thing must be happening to all of the planets."

OK so according to the video Earth started out as one giant landmass and the landmasses have drifted apart and oceans have filled the empty spaces between the landmasses. So where did the water come from? My common sense tells me the water would be below the surface, and when the landmasses drift apart the water seeps onto the surface.

Now we look at Mars. Mars is smaller than the Earth. Does that mean Mars is not as far along the expanding process than Earth? Or does it mean Mars was just smaller to begin with? Well we all know that matter expands in heat and contracts in the cold, and Mars is colder than Earth, so it makes sense that Mars has expanded less than Earth.

Now we look at Venus. Venus is about the same size as Earth. There is speculation that Venus used to have oceans like Earth but these oceans evaporated due to the heat. It is also believed that there are no plate tectonics on Venus, but there are volcanoes everywhere. I think as Venus expands, cracks appear in the surface of Venus which leads to volcanic eruptions. And since Venus is hotter than Earth, it must have been smaller than Earth when it was first formed.

So the theory that the planets are growing is plausible when looking at Venus, Earth, and Mars. But when looking at Mercury and Jupiter it falls apart. How is Mercury so small if it is exposed to the most heat? And how is Jupiter so big if it is so cold?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Oneolddude

 

Plate tectonics and continental drift already explains how land masses break or drift apart and sea level rise and fall explains why some landmasses are now submerged and others have risen. The existence of Hawaii is hardly evidence of an expanding Earth.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Hawaii was made out of volcanic eruptions, so it doesn't support plate tectonics or an expanding Earth because there are volcanoes in both theories.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
OK so according to the video Earth started out as one giant landmass and the landmasses have drifted apart and oceans have filled the empty spaces between the landmasses. So where did the water come from? My common sense tells me the water would be below the surface, and when the landmasses drift apart the water seeps onto the surface.

I'd say we once crashed with a comet, and that the Ice became our water, and the rest perhaps turned into the Moon.

Well we all know that matter expands in heat and contracts in the cold

Except water....

So the theory that the planets are growing is plausible when looking at Venus, Earth, and Mars. But when looking at Mercury and Jupiter it falls apart. How is Mercury so small if it is exposed to the most heat? And how is Jupiter so big if it is so cold?

Mercury is so close to the Sun that it must have dried out in my opinion. And Jupiter is a gas giant, perhaps even an unlit or burnt out second Sun?

reply to post by Wang Tang


I wasn't talking about Hawaii in the first couple of sentences you quoted, only in the last. Sorry if it was confusing I didn't feel that one sentence deserved its own paragraph

Hawaii wouldn't be evidence of an expanding Earth.

Originally posted by Oneolddude


My belief will be proven the correct theory with obvious evidence soon to come for all,still alive,to see.When the whole planet,not the magnetic field,not the crust,but the whole planet flips on it's axis to re-balance itself.

It has many times during it existence as it grew and became out of balance.Not,"the magnetic field has flipped many times" crap.The field stays put the planet flips until it is back in balance.

I must admit i am loving this debate, one question i would have for Oneolddude is; Would there be any ways of calculating the re-balancing flip as you mentioned above, and how the equater would run after?

What would the impact be on the surface should such a flip take place?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic


Mercury is so close to the Sun that it must have dried out in my opinion. And Jupiter is a gas giant, perhaps even an unlit or burnt out second Sun?

I agree with what you said about Mercury, but not about Jupiter. Yes, Jupiter is a gas giant, but so is Saturn and Uranus and Neptune, so half of our planets are gas giants, so that would mean the theory that the planets are expanding doesn't apply to half of the planets?

I think there are no landmasses on the gas giants because it is too cold for the gases to form into chunks of land. Jupiter definitely is not a second sun because it is a planet not a star, and if Jupiter was a star that would mean the three other gas giants would also have to be stars and that is improbable.