Growing earth theory explains a few things

reply to post by TheIrvy

you'd realise that all of our knowledgable pontification about what can and cannot be is kindergarten explanations for things far beyond our ken.

I'm not sure if that's aimed at me, or how i should take it......Care to elaborate ?

reply to post by ken10


Middle English kennen, from Old English cennan to make known & Old Norse kenna to perceive; both akin to Old English can know

First Known Use: 13th century

Essentially, it means beyond our capacity to understand.

reply to post by TheIrvy


Well that's new to me, and it seems to the internet too.......Can't find anything kennen/cennen or kenna that has that definition

But in the context of the rest of your post, I can see it does fit with that meaning......Thanks.

reply to post by ken10


It's quite the opposite of new, and i found the definition on the internet on my first search.

Remember, not everything is about you

Here is an excellent blog detailing the issues with earth expansion and the failureof plate tectonics.

So, we have to take all this Plate Tectonics stuff with a big pinch of salt, for how can a theory of the Earth be claimed without taking the continents into account? .. Which is what Plate Tectonics, by its own admission (and oceanic brief), does. In two of the most authoritative histories of the development of Plate Tectonics I've come across (Menard* and Oreskes** - see footnote) there is not even an index entry for "mountains", which by the failure of Plate Tectonics to recognise peneplanation as the precursor to building, is still the most perplexing feature of the continental crust.

Consideration of global geology stopped at the continental margins, where, as Tanya Atwater succinctly puts it: - "Subduction was a necessary adjunct concept" (Oreskes**, p.247)

Well, indeed it surely was, .. "if you believed Plate Tectonics was going on", .. and when necessity deemed denial of growth of the ocean floors ( = Earth expansion), which the 'tape measure' had so spectacularly documented was happening.

So what did they do? They invented subduction, ..and rigid 'plates', and backed it up with seismology (Isacks, Oliver, Sykes). More rubbish, because you see, seismicity is overwhelmingly an expression of movement related to the continental crust and its margins,

www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com...

As the plates move apart, magma is exposed to the ocean floor and hardens to form new rock. As the plates come together, parts of them are either crushed together and form mountains or are subducted beneath the crust and melt into magma. There is no need for the Earth to grow at all to explain the age of the ocean floor, or to explain the matching patterns of the continents, or anything else really. We can actually measure continental drift.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur...But, it doesn't explain why some plates are moving together. If the Earth was expanding, shouldn't all the plates be moving apart?...

If the earth was expanding at the same rate all over the planet, then it would, but who's to say it's not growing in spurts where pressures are weaker?

This video by Neal Adams show it really well: www.youtube.com...

He has additional videos explaining the growth of the moon and Mars. It's almost as if our solar system in an atom in the galaxy, and the galaxy is and atom of a larger unit and we expand until a microscope in some gigantic lab reveals that we're just a cell in some creatures knee cap.

Originally posted by SG-17
As the plates move apart, magma is exposed to the ocean floor and hardens to form new rock. As the plates come together, parts of them are either crushed together and form mountains or are subducted beneath the crust and melt into magma. There is no need for the Earth to grow at all to explain the age of the ocean floor, or to explain the matching patterns of the continents, or anything else really. We can actually measure continental drift.

There is no explanation of the mechanism of continental growth. And there is no theory which accuratly accounts for the building of mountains, as the presure of continental drift has been shown to be too week. There is no proof of any kind of subduction zones either, it just fits the theory. In fact, it is a very week theory when you stop and look at it.

Originally posted by Shamatt
There is no explanation of the mechanism of continental growth.

Here's an animation showing how continental growth occurred on the west coast of North America:

www.classzone.com...

Continents can grow by accumulating crustal material along their edges at convergent boundaries. Here, a terrane carried by a subducting plate is fused to the edge of a continent. The attachment of terranes such as this contributed to continental growth along the west coast of North America.

There is no proof of any kind of subduction zones either, it just fits the theory.

Then how do you explain what happens to the crust when two plates collide in places where subduction zones are thought to occur, and where seismic activity is angled down as if one crust is sliding under the other like this one?

Wadati–Benioff zone
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7cbf3724444.jpg[/atsimg]

Seismicity cross-section, Kuril Islands subduction zone

The deep earthquakes along the zone allow seismologists to map the three-dimensional surface of a subducting slab of oceanic crust and mantle.

That's pretty good evidence, isn't it? It's not "week" as you put it, it's not even month.
It provides a pretty clear picture of where seismic acticity is occurring and it sure looks like subduction, and it has the well measured plate movements colliding to back it up.

Originally posted by ken10

The Galapagos Island are only a few million years old, so where did the matter come from to make them ?

Ever heard of volcanoes?

And since old crust gets subducted, there is no new matter produced. The ultimate in recycling!

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I have found no "falsification" [?] , as you have mentioned , in the material that I have read regarding Expanding Earth Theory.

I've falsified it in this thead!

EE cannot explain Rodinia, for example. It can't even explain Britain - geologically our islands cannot exist under the EE theory since there could have been no continiental collissions and island arcs or orogeny hundreds of millions of years before the Earth started expanding. Nor, for that matter, can it explain current plate movement and subduction.

EE is an interesting exercise - what would a planet that slowly expanded be like? How woud the geology differ from what we see on Earth? How different would life evolve? And appeals to the youtube generation because it looks simple. Which it is. But it does not come even slightly close to explaining the real world. Any more than Pratchett's 'Discworld' does.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There have been as many external quotes supporting my claims as there have been supporting yours. I guess we just have to choose who to beleive. I think I am more inclined to beleive those who are humble enough to say they don't have all the answers than those who think they know it all.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

That's pretty good evidence, isn't it? It's not "week" as you put it, it's not even month. It provides a pretty clear picture of where seismic acticity is occurring and it sure looks like subduction, and it has the well measured plate movements colliding to back it up.

What you have there is a 'Picture' inferred and extrapolated from a lot of earthquake data - I would contend that these quakes are coming not from one plate inexplicably sinking and sliding below another, but from the recurving of the plates on either side after earth expansion, making them compress, grind and move against each other at the edges.




see here:

Plate Tectonics portrays Africa as colliding with Europe to form the Alpine mountain belt (check Google link above), yet it is obvious from the distribution of earthquakes that it is the northern side of the 'collision' that is doing the moving. Contrary to Plate Tectonics' view of African collision, it is Europe that is collapsing over the Mediterranean, not Africa that is colliding with Europe. The dynamics are definitive of rapid crustal extension in which surficial stretching and mantle uplift (and following collapse) are vertically paired as opposite sides of the same lithospheric extension. The contact zone (the Alpine fold belt) of Europe is a tract of substantial elevation compared to North Africa (Libya and Egypt), which lies barely above sea level, and is recognised since before the advent of Plate Tectonics as a zone of gravitational collapse.

earthexpansion.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
Question - If the earth is in fact growing... where is the matter coming from to support this growth?

This is the very most important question about Growing Earth. However, in order to answer it, we must develop some common background understanding in particle physics and cosmology, which can be quite complex.

So let's spend a little time on it and try to simplify the concepts a little. For members well versed with the basics, please bear with us and tolerate the simplifications, for the sake of those who might benefit from it.

I'm writing all this on the fly for this discussion.

The Short Short Answer

In its simplest form, the answer is that there may be a great electromagnetic force in the cores of planets, suns moons and galaxies, somewhat analogous to the Strong Force that binds atomic nuclei. This force causes the transformation of pure energy to new atomic matter. Which means that new matter, starting with Hydrogen, is always being manufactured within all celestial bodies, which causes them to grow.

Below is the long answer to this very most important process.

Energy, Particles and Matter

It's critical to remember that all matter is made of energy. That there is no true matter, in the material sense of the word, in the universe. Particles such as electrons and protons, which are made of energy, bind together into atoms and molecules to give the impression of solid substance, but no substance is really solid. It's all really made of energy.

When we try to walk through a closed door, for example, we're not really stopped by the solid substance of the door. What stops us is the electromagnetic repulsion of our atoms to the atoms of the door. Electromagnetic energy attracts or repels atoms to each other.

We don't really know what energy is made of, if anything. What we do know is that energy is a force which we can detect by its action and charge. Generally, energy seems to be waving infinitely because we can detect energy waves that have been waving consistently for eons. These are called traveling waves.

In its most primordial state, energy is one endless waving force. When a somewhat small part of energy is separated from the whole (what we call quantum size), it can become trapped into itself and it then waves (or spins) endlessly around itself, instead of waving outwardly like traveling waves.

This is called a standing wave.

A standing wave is in essence a particle, like an electron.

The spin of a particle gives it its charge. The direction of spin of one particle relative to another defines whether it's a positive or negative charge. Particles spinning in the same direction have the same charge. Two particles spinning in opposite direction to each other have opposite charges.

A particle spinning around itself gives the particle mass. The smallest particle with mass that is a basic constituent of atoms, is the electron. Positrons, which are identical sized particles to electrons but have an opposite spin and charge, are called anti-matter, because they appear to annihilate with electrons when both particles come together.

There are many units of energy, and/or particles, in addition to electrons and positrons, such as photons, bosons and gluons, but they are not basic constituents of atoms. However they appear to play a role in the interaction and transfer of energy between the basic particles that make up atoms.

Quarks, Hadrons and Atoms

Atoms are made of a nucleus around which electrons orbit. One way atoms bind together is by exchanging electrons which transfer their orbit around two or more atoms.

A nucleus is made of Hadrons, which is a name for protons and neutrons. The smallest atom is Hydrogen which only has one proton with one orbiting electron and is the lightest substance. Atoms that have two or more protons and/or neutrons make up heavier substances. Generally, the more protons, neutrons and electrons in an atom, the heavier the substance.

Hadrons (protons and neutrons) are generally made of 3 particles called quarks.

This is where things become a little more interesting.

Until the early 1960's, scientists considered protons and neutrons to be elementary particles like electrons. Elementary particles are particles which cannot be broken down into smaller particles. However, with the advent of better particle accelerators and colliders in the 60's, scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles. They discovered that these were made of quarks.

Basically, they discovered that protons and neutrons are made of 3 electromagnetic energy fields that they consider to be quark particles. Remember that particles are basically energy fields that spin about themselves.

Quarks are now still considered elementary particles. However, the LHC Super Collider is producing evidence that suggests this might not be true. But we'll come back to that a little later.

The Mystery of Atomic Nuclei

The biggest mystery about atoms is: What is the nucleus made of?

The reason for this mystery is that the accumulated mass of quarks in the nucleus is much much less than the total mass of the nucleus. Which also means that the total mass of a proton or neutron is much greater than the combined mass of its 3 quarks.

The question which baffles scientists is: Where is the missing mass?

One theory is the presence of a mysterious particle in atomic nuclei that's called a Higgs Boson which is also called "The God Particle" because it presumably endows the atom nucleus with most of its mass and binds the fabric of the universe together.

The problem is that the force binding hadrons together in atom nuclei, which is called the Strong Force, is so strong, that we are not yet able to break apart the protons to discover what's really inside.

That's what the Super Collider is hoping to achieve. That's why they're smashing protons together there. In order to break them apart to see what's inside. But we'll come back to that a little later also.

Cosmology and Particle Physics

Cosmology theory became locked into the Big Bang premise in the mid-1940s. At the time there was a competitor theory called Steady State.

Big Bang suggested a fixed amount of energy and matter in the universe that exploded into being from an ultra-dense singularity, and within the first few seconds after the initial explosion, created all the matter in the universe through a process of "decompression" of the energy into atomic particles.

Steady State suggested that the universe is infinite and did not presume to theorize how it began. It rather relied on the theory of an unseen layer of energy called Aether, which transformed to matter within the cores of celestial bodies. This caused the universe to "grow" and not merely expand, as was suggested by Big Bang.

Steady state was rejected in favor of Big Bang for several reasons, the most prominent of which was science's rejection of the theory of Aether.

Big Bang was easier to digest scientifically because it seemed easier to work with a universe of a fixed amount of matter and energy.

Big Bang also became the basis for exploration and theory in particle physics. Since then, all experiment and exploration of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, has been based on the premise of all atomic matter coming into being within the first few seconds of the initial Big Bang explosion.

Was there a Big Bang?

Aside from points made in the Cosmology Statement about the failed predictions and general failure of Big Bang, there's an important aspect about it that's been mostly ignored by science. The fundemetal premise of Big Bang was that because it was observed that stars and galaxies are moving away from each other at a slowing rate of speed, then going back in time expansion was faster and faster until we return to the beginning of expansion, where it was ultra-fast, or a big explosion... which is called a Big Bang.

The problem with Big Bang is that the Hubble Telescope discovered in the 1990's that universe expansion was indeed accelerating, and not decelarating as was previously presumed. This small fact suggests that going back in time to the beginning, there would have been no Big Bang explosion. Rather it suggests a long and slow process of matter being formed and manufactured since the very beginning, which continues today and accelerates in time to reflect the accelerating expansion rate we observe today.

Which means that instead of all matter being created in the first few seconds of the universe, as is assumed by science, the more applicable conclusion would be that the creation of matter is a slow and constant process that has been happening consistently, and accelerating exponentially, since the beginning of the universe from the smallest particles.

Additionally, many discoveries since 1945 suggest that Steady State may be a much more sound model for cosmology than Big Bang. Subsequently there have been many efforts by scientists to combine the two theories, since the Hubble discoveries. however, mainstream scientific consensus continues to resist such a merger of theories.

Ironically, although the theory of Aether in Steady State was rejected, Big Bang Cosmology has needed to theorize about unseen layers of energy in the universe to fulfill the functions of Aether. This is why theories of Dark Matter and Dark Energy have been proposed. Both are unseen layers of matter/energy that basically perform many of the same functions as Aether and attempt to answer similar myseries about the universe.

In that the standard model of particle physics is mostly founded upon conditions of the first few seconds of the Big Bang explosion, then the questions arising as to the verasity of Big Bang, place a serious doubt on many theoretical areas of the present model of particle physics and how matter comes into being in the universe.

The Best Evidence for Growing Earth

The single most important piece of evidence for Growing Earth is in the models made by several geologists (and Neal Adams) where they prove conclusively that all the continents come together on a smaller Earth to form a perfect complete shell of continental crust around the Earth.

It is similar to someone finding broken pieces of pottery, for example, and putting them together to form a vase.

This is such compelling evidense for the pieces having been a vase before they broke apart, that no scientist in their right mind would suggest otherwise upon seeing it.

Yet scientists continue to ignore this evidence as if it doesn't even exist... because it challenges all the present models of the cosmology, geology and particle physics.

So, instead, scientists rely of half-truths and inconclusive data in order to discredit Growing Earth proponents.

They also rely on the "closed club" mentality of peer-reviewed acceptance of evidence, in order to shut out renegade scientists who challenge the present models, by discrediting their work as not being compatible with mainstream science.

What is Anti-Matter?

To date, the only natural anti-Matter we know of are positrons. Scientists have been able to manufacture other forms in high-speed collissions, such as anti-protons and Anti-quarks, but none of these have ever been observed in the natural universe outside of experimental lab conditions.

Positrons were discovered in 1932 by Carl Anderson when he created a tube with lenses that catured cosmic rays, or photons, which rain down on the earth all the time, even now right next to your shoulder. Anderson discovered that every once in a while, a photon will strike something and suddenly an electron and positron appear out of seemingly nowhere. They then converge together and presumably annihilate in an emission of gama rays.

This process is known as "Pair Production" and it is the only natural phenomenon we know of where new matter with mass emerges into the universe from seemingly nothing.

Science gave the name of anti-matter to positrons because they presumably annihilate with electrons. But in reality, positrons are simply electrons with an opposite (+) chagre.

When scientists at the LHC Super Collider say they've been able to isolate more anti-matter than ever before, they mean that they've been able to isolate positrons and keep them separate from electrons so they don't disappear on us before we can examine them.

Presently, they say they're able to isolate anti-matter for as long as 15 minutes.

How is Matter Made in Growing Earth/Universe Model?

Ironically, one of the more plausible suggestions for how matter is made... or how new atoms are made from pure energy, has been proposed by comic book artist Neal Adams, who's spent the better part of 40 years studying the various sciences. Neal is one of the more mechanically adept artists alive today who understands physical apparatusi better than most of his colleagues and many scientists. He has designed some of the more thrilling amusement park rides we have today, which have all proven to be sound from an engineering standpoint. His mechanical adeptness has allowed him to put a finger an a possible mechanism for how new atoms are made from an unseen layer of energy, in the cores of celestial bodies.

Adams combines many theories in geoleogy, cosmology and particle physics into his version of the Pair Production process.

He suggests that when positrons and electrons converge and disappear in the pair production process, that they don't truly annihilate as we believe today. Rather they simply become undetectable because their equal but opposite electromagnetic charges cancel each other out. The only way we can detect sub-atomic particles is by their EM charge.

Science already knows of such a phenomenon with H2 atoms, which are Hydrogen atoms with two electrons. The Hubble telescope discovered that the universe is filled with H2 atoms which are mostly undetectable because opposite charged forms of the H2 atom, which converge together, cancel each other out and render them invisible.

Adams suggests a similar phenomenon occurs with electrons and positrons. Science calls this convergance Positronium. Neal calls it Prime Matter.

He suggests that the universe is filled with a field of Prime Matter particles and that this explains the unseen layers of energy that science is looking for, such as Aether, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

In the cores of celestial bodies, because the electromagnetic force there is of utmost intensity due to celestial bodies riding on electromagnetic lines, Adams suggests that electrons and positrons are separated by this EM force and are not able to converge and disappear, as they do everywhere else in the universe.

In the cores of planets, moons, suns and galaxies, when positrons are able to exist separately for a given length of time, they attract a given amount of the invisible Positronium (or Prime Matter) particles, according to the relative attractive force of of a positron.

Adams suggests that the number of converged positrons/electrons that a lone positron can hold is 1836, or 918 pairs of positrons/electrons, Which is the atomic weight of a proton or neutron.

When an electron attempts to reach the core positron and fails to do so because of these 1836 particles that are now attached to it, then the electron instead orbits around it... and thus forms a new Hydrogen atom that did not exist before.

And that's how Adams suggests new atomic matter is made in the cores of celestial bodies causing them to grow.

Quarks May Not be Elementary Particles

Based on his theory, Adams suggests that quarks are not elementary particles as we now assume. Rather that the 918 pairs of particles create 3 electromagnetic fields within protons and neutrons. which we detect as quarks.

This is significant because quarks do not exist in nature outside of protons and neutrons. Some quarks have been manufacutured artificially in high speed collisions, but they do not survive for more than a few micro-seconds. Natural quarks are only observed within protons and neutrons.

LHC Super Collider Findings Support Pair Production

The most fascinating findings from the Super Collider are that scientists have been able to isolate more anti-matter for a long period of time than ever before in the new experiments.

But what they mean is that they've been able to isolate POSITRONS, because positrons are the only natural anti-matter we know of in the universe.

What this means is that in their effort to smash protons together to see what they're made of, scientists have not yet found the mysterious Higgs Boson they believed they might find, based on their current model of particle physics.

Instead of the imaginary Higgs Boson, scientists have been finding a lot Positrons.

This single most fascinating phenomenon of the Super Collider supports Neal Adams' theory of Pair production being at the core of how atoms are made.

Why is the Discovery of Anti-Matter by LHC Significant?

If as believed by many, that we are on the cusp of a big leap in science that might shake the foundations of present models, then this discovery hints at a new source of energy previously unimagined by mankind. At least outside of science-fiction visionaries who've suggested how the future might look and who have already made many predictions that have come true.

Our continued evolution and development as a civilization today necessitates a new source of energy that will allow us to better provide for humanity and to also allow us to traverse the solar system more efficinetly.

Our present capabilities in space travel are so primitive that we're not even able to send a manned spacecraft to the nearest planet in our solar system because it takes too long and is too costly and dangerous.

We will need a source of energy so powerful and abundant that it will dwarf all other forms we know today, including nucleur energy.

The discovery of the process of creation of matter and the harnessing of the force of Anti-Matter may be the single most significant discovery awaiting us on the horizon, which will solve our energy problems and open a new door for space exploration such as has only been imagined in the predictions of science fiction literature.

A science Hindered by its own Theories

It has been my contention that although it is seems easier for science to work with one fixed model, the notion of being prematurely locked into such a model, which may not be the right one, will eventually make it much more difficult to move on to the more sound theories that new evidence is suggesting. In light of all of the above, and as appears to be the case with Big Bang, Plate Tectonics and the Standard Model of Particle Physics, science will now need a very major upheaval in order to catch up with itself and all the new discoveries we've made since we first became locked into these theories.

I've thus proposed the idea that it might be more scientifically sound to apply a probability percentage to contending theories and proceed to apply a proportionate effort into exploring a number of possibilities simultaneously. As an example, if we had applied 50% of scientific resources into Expanding Earth and Steady State, instead of 100% to Big Bang and Plate Tectonics, then our scientific advancement and achievent on these fronts might have been much more fruitful today.

But everything appears to be as it is for a good purpose, which might be a learning curve for humanity that allows us to accept our discovery process with a certain measure of humility.

Because it is only when we admit to ourselves that we might not understand everything that we begin to be open to truly understanding it.

Again please forgive the long and perhaps over-simplified science primer. I do hope it helps some of us to better understand what's behind this theory and the very critical and significant time that it emerges in today.

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
Question - If the earth is in fact growing... where is the matter coming from to support this growth?

This is the very most important question about Growing Earth. However, in order to answer it, we must develop some common background understanding in particle physics and cosmology, which can be quite complex.

Actually, with regards the EE hypothesis, we have to ask what size the Earth started out at and/or why it only started expanding after 4,450,000,000 years and not before?

If the Earth was less than half it's size 250ma then what size was it 750ma?

Simple question, And a robust hyposthesis wil have a ready expanation .......

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
What you have there is a 'Picture' inferred and extrapolated from a lot of earthquake data -

Why do you say "inferred and extrapolated"? Do you doubt we have the ability to determine the epicenter of an earthquake?

I would contend that these quakes are coming not from one plate inexplicably sinking and sliding below another, but from the recurving of the plates on either side after earth expansion, making them compress, grind and move against each other at the edges.

In no way that I can see does that explanation even come close to explaining the graph I posted, where as a subduction explains the data extremely well.

Originally posted by Shamatt
There have been as many external quotes supporting my claims as there have been supporting yours. I guess we just have to choose who to beleive. I think I am more inclined to beleive those who are humble enough to say they don't have all the answers than those who think they know it all.

You made specific claims about lacking evidence and when I provide it you choose to not address it but to make vague reference to "external quotes".

Nobody claims to "know it all" but to claim there's no proof of subduction and to just walk away from clear and overwhelming evidence of subduction doesn't do anything to support your position.

double post

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
What you have there is a 'Picture' inferred and extrapolated from a lot of earthquake data -

Why do you say "inferred and extrapolated"? Do you doubt we have the ability to determine the epicenter of an earthquake?

I have seen the complete data sets before - they are messy and inconclusive except in a few instances and the direction of slippage is often not in accordance with a sinking slab.

And that, in a nutshell, is plate tectonics' position. But can we see subduction? Is it well documented? The answer is no, ...we can't. And it isn't. What we can see (that is well documented) is a zone of earthquakes that releases about ten times as much energy as spreading ridges and transform faults combined, that occupies about 200km of lithospheric thickness, that reaches down to about 760 - 800km, that goes all around the Pacific, and whose relative first motions of displacement are in fact much more ambiguous than the 'carrying down' of subduction says, and many of which are as much (if not more) sideways than down. But plate tectonics assumes that these earthquakes (= brittle behaviour) mean that the zone of mantle in which they occur (which they call a 'slab'/ 'mantle slabs') is cold, and is therefore more dense, and is therefore sinking. So when plate tectonics uses the term "subducting cold mantle slabs" as shorthand for what it intends to convey, it is being highly misrepresentative of the facts. It is in fact saying no more than "..a zone of Earthquakes that reaches down to 800km".

There are ways of interpreting that zone (as described on this site) other than plate tectonics says. The mantle is not necessarily 'subducting', nor even (as it supposedly 'descends') is it cold, .and the 'slab' is actually constituted of the entire ocean floor right back to the ridge, not simply the turned-down sector that Plate Tectonics usually labels 'slab'. If coldness and slabness is the point, why doesn't the entire ocean floor just sink? It is after all cold, and more dense than the mantle on which it is sitting. And it is huge - making up two thirds of the Earth's surface in fact. Why must it travel so far from the ridge before it is cold enough to sink? It's pretty cold right where it is, on an Icelandic slope, say, ..even in the sunshine. And why (if it is cold) must it always sink on a line (a continental margin)? Why doesn't it just sink anyhow, ...like a 'plate' - and zig-zag to the bottom? Because there is a space problem? ...no room for all that ocean floor at the surface to sit on the much smaller curvature of the core-mantle boundary? Or maybe, because gravitational force tapers off with depth it will tend not to sink at all after a while?

users.indigo.net.au...

Originally posted by Essan
Actually, with regards the EE hypothesis, we have to ask what size the Earth started out at and/or why it only started expanding after 4,450,000,000 years and not before?

If the Earth was less than half it's size 250ma then what size was it 750ma?

Simple question, And a robust hyposthesis wil have a ready expanation .......

I agree that this is a fundamental question as well.

Gathering together some of the ideas suggested by Growing Earth explorers to answer it, here's an explanation that filters through my own understanding.

If we take the Earth as an example, within this scenario the earth has been in a semi-consistent growing process since the first particles it formed from were ejected from the sun. Presumably, no later than some 4-5 billion years ago... and very likely some several billion years before.

This growing process is exponential as is evidenced by the ages of segments of the ocean floor. When looking at the areas of the last 50 million years of new oceanic crust, as an example, it's easy to see how the ocean floor expansion is accelerating in time, much the same as universe expansion is, making it an exponentially accelerating growth process.

This would mean that the Earth started with clumps of particles ejected from the sun that began forming along its orbit and attracted more dust, matter and particles until it became big enough to form a closed system that allowed the manufacture of new atomic mass within it. At this stage we could assume that this closed system contains a layer of molten material, perhaps at the surface, or just below it, resulting from the increasing EM force within it and the heat generated from it.

We don't have much data on what size an asteroid needs to be to form this closed system which allows it to grow, but we've seen large hollow asteroids that suggest this process.

As this asteroidic body begins to manufacture new Hydrogen, which converts to heavier matter as the Hydrogen is processed from its core, it begins to grow at a faster and faster rate. This is likely a very long process of several billion years.

Mars and the Moon may be good examples of this. The moon which was once considered to be completely dry, is now known to have water deposits within it. Which means that in the growing scenario, it is beginning to manufacture Hydrogen at such a rate, and provides the conditions for the processing of Hydrogen into water within it. The Moon is about 1/6th the size of the Earth.

Mars, which is about the size of the Earth when the continents began to break apart, is much more abundant in water deposits. But because it's further from the sun and has a lesser solar gravitational influence, it's difficult to make an exact comparison. But both the Moon and Mars suggest this growing process we can more clearly see in ther Earth.

The time segments of Earth's growing process are less clear at this stage, mainly because mainstream science has not applied its data and research to exploring this possibility. What we can clearly see is that the growing process of the Earth, having a now cooled its magma surface, becoming a hard brittle crustal shell, reached a critical point about 200 million years ago, as pressure built up within it and the crust began to break apart in order to allow the new magmatic matter emerging from it to appear on the surface as oceanic floor.

At this stage, it's assumed that the Earth was covered with shallow seas which drained into the new ocean floor when the crust began to break apart.

Within this scenario, the growing process which was accelerating exponentially, began manufacturing larger amounts of Hydrogen in its core, which transformed into all of the elements present in the Earth today through atomic fusion processes beginning in the outer core.

This suggests that water, salt and oil, for example, continue to be manufactured within the Earth's closed system.

Continuing this process forward, an elegant suggestion arising from it is that perhaps millions or billions of years from today, Earth will grow to become a gas giant like Jupiter and Saturn.

Further in the future, the Earth will continue growing until it reaches another stage of critical mass and bursts in a supernova event that scatters its matter into the periphery of the galaxy, where some of it will also likely drift towards the core and become absorbed back into what's presumed to be the black hole we observe there.

There's an interesting observation about our Milky Way and other galaxy cores discovered also by Hubble: Along with attracting stray dust and materials coming into its range, the galaxy cores also EMIT an enormous amount of POSITRONS and ELECTRONS from within them.

It's as if galaxy cores also have the same conditions as planet and sun cores to produce new atomic matter.

This notion also suggests a marvelous cycle of galaxy growth, wherein stars are manufactured from within them as the electrons and positrons clump together along the spiraling lines closest to the core, to form the first suns, which continue spiraling outward from the galaxies as they, in turn, manufacture planets and moons which grow and eventually become suns and stars themselves before exploding into supernovas and scattering about and creating the large amounts of dust and other matter at the outer edges of galaxies.

I believe that if such a scenario was pursued by mainstream science along with the present models, then we'd have much more sound assessments about its viability. But because science has locked this direction out of its research by dismissing Steady State and Expanding Earth, then all of the observations and evidence that mainstream science gathers are forced to fit into Big Bang and Plate Tectonics.

This is a primary reason that many arguments by mainstream science against Steady State and Expanding Earth cannot be taken at face value. The scales were prematurely tipped against these theories all the way from the starting line. They were never given a fighting (or exploring chance). No funds were directed to explore and test ideas. These theories became taboo long before we had any information to justify discrediting them. Too much evidence discovered since then points to their having some serious scientific veracity. None of the information or arguments in science against this scenario are inherently trustworthy right now, considering the enormous amount of observation and evidence that science ignores concerning therm.

I also believe that in the same way that the Earth's crust broke apart when the pressure within it became too strong, then the same will happen with science regarding Growing Earth and Universe.

We appear to be coming very close to this critical phase now.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
Question - If the earth is in fact growing... where is the matter coming from to support this growth?

This is the very most important question about Growing Earth. However, in order to answer it, we must develop some common background understanding in particle physics and cosmology, which can be quite complex.

Actually, with regards the EE hypothesis, we have to ask what size the Earth started out at and/or why it only started expanding after 4,450,000,000 years and not before?

If the Earth was less than half it's size 250ma then what size was it 750ma?

Simple question, And a robust hyposthesis wil have a ready expanation .......

There is plenty of theoretical room for creation/accumulation of mass at the earths core via alternative physics theories - not to mention the triple geospheres theory of Sep hasslberger blog.hasslberger.com...

However personaly as someone who knows the reality of psychic phenomina, that the earth is a living being with an evolution and destiny of her own and that the universe is a multi dimensional and multi density phenomina.

Then the question as to why she has expanded only in the last 250 million yrs or so is not likely to be found in the realm of physics - neither in my opinion is the missing mass as it likey condenses directly from the lower astral realms in episodic fashion.

reply to post by SG-17


Plate tectonics might someday be considered a joke if a better theory is found.
That is how science is.