The Expanding Earth hypothesis.

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Hi ATS.

I know of the expanding Earth theory for quite some time now. I've noticed the ridicule and lack of attention which was logical, the lack of evidence and a theory don't go well together.


Well... Recently I've been introduced with the work of DR. James Maxlow.
Dr. Marlow has apparently been able to provide this lacking evidence. I think his explanation is extraordinary interesting. That's why I've made the effort to offer you all this information and I'm very interested in what you all think of it. Don't go ridiculing just yet... Dr. Marlow is an expert and
he even got a PhD because of his work. I will present you with his work and a little bit of the Dr. himself.

I will provide the sources I have used in the bottom of this thread.

I hope you will enjoy this as much as I did and I'm looking forward to what you all think.


Dr. Maxlow's Research

Dr. Maxlow's interests in Expansion Tectonics stem from a dissatifaction with plate tectonics in explaining geological phenomena. As part of his PhD research into global tectonics, he created models of an expanding Earth from the present back to the early Archaean Era. This is the first time that both oceanic and continental crusts have been used to reconstruct plate assemblage for the entire 100% of Earth history. Models were then used to layer global geographical, climatic, geophysical and geological data to quantify an Earth expansion process (note: Earth expansion = growing Earth).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Marlow's research gives an explanation of Expansion Tectonics. Including:




  • - Geology and the Rock-Record
  • - Historical ways of viewing the Earth
  • - Contributions to Modern Tectonic Theory
  • - Important Considerations
  • - Comparison of Expansion Tectonics and Plate Tectonics
  • - Overview of Expansion Tectonics
  • - Geological, Geographical and Geophysical Evidence
  • - Ancient Magnet Poles
  • - Ancient Geography
  • - Ancient Biogeography
  • - Ancient Climate
  • - Further Considerations
  • - What is causing the Earth to expand?
  • - What about the Supercontinents?
  • - What about the ocean water and atmosphere?
  • - What about subduction?
  • - What about mountain building?
  • - What about past measurements of Earth radius?
  • - What about space geodetic measurements?
  • - Expansion Tectonics as a viable scientific fact


Link to picture. ( Must see ! )

Yes! The Earth is Expanding.



I'll start with a You tube link and there will be more. However these are not the only source I will offer as you will see a little further in this thread. This is part 1 of 14 where he explains how he came to the conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Part 1 Intro.




To be continued in the following post.








[edit on 5/23/2010 by Sinter Klaas]




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Continuation of the Opening Post.



Part 2 Explanation of the science he based his theory on. ( Age of the sediments ) Geological map of the world. Recent world geology


From this point on I will link to the videos.

Part 4

Part 5
( Interesting theory about Earth in a transition state )

Part 6.

Part 7.

Part 8.
Interesting studies show outcome extinctions. Two separate oceans ??!

Part 9.
Explanation of Australie moving from a tropical to a desert climate suggesting the continent migration south from the equator instead of north from antartica.
( Someone even links Australia with Atlantis in the end. Speculation but interesting. )

Part 10.

Part 11.

From this part on he is explaining how the expansion process works.

Expansion process.



1. Measurements of earths Radius.
2. Constant mass versus increasing mass.
3. Planetary origins.
4. Future expansion.


Part 12.

Part 13.

Part 14.


That were all the videos I had to offer. I have given a little comment on those I found particular interesting. That does not mean the rest are not.



What's causing the Earth to expand ?

1.A pulsating Earth, where cyclic expansion of the Earth is said to have opened the oceans and contractions have caused orogenesis (mountain building). This proposal fails to satisfy exponential expansion, as shown by modern oceanic mapping, and Professor Carey considered the theme to have arisen from the false misconception that mountain building implies crustal contraction. In addition, Carey saw no compelling evidence for intermittent contractions of the Earth.

2.Meteoric and asteroid accretion. This is currently a popular theory, proposed also to explain some of the various extinction events that have plagued the Earth. It basically says expansion is caused by an accumulation of extraterrestrial debris over time. This theme was rejected by Carey as the primary cause of Earth expansion, since expansion should then decrease exponentially with time, not increase as shown by the oceanic mapping. Nor does it explain ocean floor spreading, or the distribution of oceanic crust or covering sediments.

3.Constant Earth mass, with phase changes of an originally super-dense core. This was again rejected by Carey as the main cause of Earth expansion because the theme implied too large a surface gravity throughout the Precambrian to Late Paleozoic Eras. A large Precambrian surface gravity was not evident from studies carried out during the 1970s. For a constant Earth mass, density would have also been unacceptably high during the Precambrian.

4.Secular reduction of the universal gravitation constant G. Such a decline of G was said to cause expansion through the release of elastic compressional energy throughout the Earth, and phase changes to lower densities in the mantle. Carey rejected this proposal as the main cause of expansion for three reasons: (a) formerly the surface gravity would have been unacceptably high, (b) the magnitude of expansion is probably too small, and (c) the arguments for such a reduction in G were considered not to indicate an exponential rate of increase in radius.

A cosmological cause involving a secular increase in the mass of the Earth. This suggestion remains the most popular theme.


Expansion Tectonics as a viable scientific fact

Put simply, the process of Expansion Tectonics, from the beginning of geological time to the present can now be accurately constrained. This has never been achieved before and in itself quantifies Expansion Tectonics. By using modern global geological and geophysical data our Earth is shown to have undergone a steady expansion throughout the Precambrian Eras, prior to a rapidly accelerating expansion during the more recent eras, and continental break-up and opening of the modern oceans during the past 200 million years to the present.

With this modern geological and geophysical data we now have the means to accurately quantify an Earth expansion process, making the evidence in favour of expansion very favourable. In order to accept Expansion Tectonics as a viable global tectonic concept, we must, however, be prepared to remove the constant Earth radius premise in order to encourage active research into alternatives too currently accepted global theories.



I think this now sounds quite plausible I'm no expert so I don't really know.

Did this man convince anyone ?
Can anyone debunk it without the shadow of a doubt ?

I hope you all have enjoyed his theory and I can't wait to read your comments on it.

Kind regards.

~SK


Sources:

Expanding Earth wiki link.

Current status
----------------------------------------------------------
Modern measurements have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding Earth. For example, paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius. Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.


Note.
Although Marlow is mentioned as a source his theory and his suggestion of manipulation is not refuted . He isn’t even mentioned at all in the wiki article.


GLOBAL EXPANSION TECTONICS A MORE RATIONAL EXPLANATION by James Maxlow

Ocean mapping.

Dr. James maxlow home page

Expansion tectonics explained.

PDF download available here.

www.oneoffpublishing.com E-book Terra non firming Earth
Hardcopy @ university book stores

Email : Dr James Maxlow
Terrellacunsultants@bigpond.com
If you are genuinely interested ? Feel free to contact the professor.


Edit for removing bb code.

Part 14 shows the Earth models Dr. Maxlow uses in his theory




[edit on 5/23/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 
Hiya Sinter, the expanding Earth idea has been around for some time without gaining support from science. A lot of ATSers will take that as proof that EEH is true, but it indicates a lack of substance to the idea.

One of the main problems with the concept is the lack of a plausible mechanism for creating all the matter needed to explain the expansion. If the continents were all together when the world was supposedly half the size...from where has the matter been created?

Some have claimed the Earth's core is a matter/anti-matter generator...others that bombardment from space accounts for it all. Pretty weak explanations. The evolving model of plate tectonics and subduction zones is based on accepted evidence from disparate fields across science. For example, the seismic potentiality of fault lines are predictable according to theoretical models. The prediction is later validated (or not) by measurements on the Richter Scale. This is evidence of tectonics and not growing Earth. It presents an explanation, that's not only supported by evidence, but makes sense.

My impression of EEHers is they argue from incredulity and have filled the gaps of their disbelief with this idea of growing Earth. It's a slippery concept that is impossible to 'debunk without a shadow of a doubt.' Doubt alone is enough for the menagerie of eccentric belief systems in the world. Personally, I believe EEH is a nonsense, but won't be at all surprised to see it gain traction on ATS.

(You've posted a very well-laid out OP. I like it. SnF)



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hi Kandinsky.

Thank you very much.


I know that the whole matter from nothing part is a big problem.
But what I get from this explanation is that it all together is a tighter fit.

The evidence he uses for support are all pretty convincing.

It's not like have never been wrong before and the aging seabed along with the pole and climate argument, together with the puzzle and the huge size of the dinosaurs make this very plausible for me.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I've always loved this theory. Thanks for the posts....I haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but I will tongiht.

I'm including the following link for those of you who haven't seen Neal Adam's animations on the theory. (He calls it the expanding universe theory, because he says it happens to all planets, etc...)

www.nealadams.com...

N

[edit on 23-5-2010 by nikiano]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


Thank you.


I could have placed it in the OP but I decided not to because I didn't want them to mingle.

It is very interesting nonetheless.

The links to the videos I posted are all shorter then 10 minutes. I think that was great.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


What about a core made of plasma? Shouldn't a solid core that gravitationally 'sucks' matter downwards toward stop magma from pushing up? A plasma core would expand outwards, wouldn't it? I'm trying to find the link where I read this. Made sense at the time, but I'm still learning about it myself.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


S&F

Excellent post, haven't seen this video series before, but will check it out tomorrow!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Don't we know for a fact that, the core is made up of Iron?




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by sirnex
 


Don't we know for a fact that, the core is made up of Iron?



Nope, no one's been there; A plasma core (I will find that link probably tomorrow) would display the same properties as a solid core.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


well i think it's pretty obvious where teh matter came from. it's more of a problem of when it became the earth instead of being a dustcloud. obviously the matter came from our solar system's formation. did this happen overnight? do geologists completely understand it?

i think your air of confidence is overstepping it's bounds. how can you possibly state that this theory is incorrect when the navy have provided rock solid (pun intended) evidence to the contrary.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Interestingly enough Douglas Adams was working on a similar hypothesis at the time of his death. While the idea itself isn't new, it certainly is intriguing.

Great thread!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



The plasma / solar material.
I'm sure I've seen this pass in the videos in the OP.

It's not fully explained but just enough to get the idea.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


Douglas Adams ?

That's the guy the wrote Hitchhiking through the Galaxy isn't he ?

Thank you very much.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by sirnex
 



The plasma / solar material.
I'm sure I've seen this pass in the videos in the OP.

It's not fully explained but just enough to get the idea.


I'll definitely have to watch the series tomorrow then. What's your personal take on that idea?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I think it is a better explanation. But I'm really not in the position to judge.
I do not know everything about both theories .

However, some of the arguments can be interpreted as absolute proof.
He ( IMO) gives a very complete explanation. Very convincing IMO.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The theory pretty much hinges on whether or not subduction occurs.

He also suggest that enough water is pumped up along with the new crust so that the smaller earth was not completly flooded, which of course would leave tell tail signs like fish fossils. I'm not too sure about how sound this is either.

I think it's worth looking at but the current expanding earth hypothesis seems hardly complete yet.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


You know this alternative idea to plate-tectonics is well thought out, I like it actually.

Unlike others who say, you can't create matter in the core of our earth, again how much do we really know about mother earth?

I'd say not enough to be experts that is for sure.

I like the diagrams with the pangea of continents from long ago to now. It fits!

Anway the videos were very informative, great thread again Sinter Klaas!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Hi are you telling that the earth is expanding?

I think that it is shrinking due to the release of heat from inside. Through volcanoes and geo thermal energy in deep sea, it is cooling down.


Ethan
www.greenilo.com
Ideas for Green Earth



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ethan_500
 


Hi.

Actually I'm not telling the Earth is growing, Dr. Maxlow is.

Do you have any link where I can read about a shrinking Earth ?
I'd appreciate it.

I'm rather interested.





top topics
 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join