Expanding earth theory now plausible science?

What then is your supposed mechanism for an expanding Earth? How would you explain the stability of the Moon's orbit under a regime of an Earth substantially increasing in mass? How do you explain away the palaeomagnetic data? Mountain ranges? Subduction zones and so on?

There are far too many insurmountable problems that arise within mere moments of even considering this 'theory,' that it should be instantly disregarded as mere flat Earth tier drivel.

a reply to: Phage

And it would mean a long cherished theory that as the south american continent rode over an unusually? thick pacific plate were it pushed up the andes in the ensuing crumple zone (another still rising mountain range) that the entire south american continent either over the natural accepted geological time scale or possibly at some times in earth quakes and geological catachlysms may have litterally tipped upward on it's eastern side as evidenced by the presence of only slightly modified and now fresh water adapted and stunted flora and fauna very closely related to that at sea level of the west coast at the inland sea/lake titikaka on the altiplana, this life may have slowly adapted after the uplift as the salinity of the trapped and now landlocked former bay which has shrank as well over time was lowered by fresh water mixing over time and displacing the salt water. The possible age of the Dock at Puma Punku and the way the stone ruins are thrown and scattered about despite there huge size once again comes to mind as does the deep possible ruins north west of cube found by Paulina Zelitsky and her team and later ignored and derided not least by supposedly educated individuals on this site despite the high level of geometrical and architectural symetry of the site and could not such a site have been another victim of the continents "eastern side/seaboard plate" being pushed down through a mixture of reduced geological pressure in the atlantic ridge now with more room to breath and expand as the continent's had seperated and also due to the reduction of ice on land and the ensuing increase in sea volume with it's own geological pressure compressing the sub oceanic crust coupled with the continents westerly drift over a thickening ancient pacific plate.
Indeed while I am a proponent of Crustal drift and techtonic activity I think we all know that sometimes vast changes can happen in a very short time scale and can you imagine the size of the ensuing tidal waves of suck a geological upset.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I'm not sure if we all understand the expending earth theory completely. My first though was that we need additional material or expanding material (due to more heat..) or something like this to expand our earth.

But what if it is just the universe that is expanding and with it every atom and thus our earth too. I'm just not sure if we could measure such a thing as our rulers would expand with it thus showing the same results? But maybe the earth is expanding because the universe itself is expanding and we can measure this.

a reply to: UnixFE

Well it has to do with a theory about sub atomic forced being trapped and forming particles inside the planet which over time would mean it would grow, it is also related in some ways but not directly to the exploding planet hypothesis but that too is a very wide field of theory with everything from mad hatters to professors arguing about it but among those professors as some whom are very well qualified, this is not the expanding earth theory but is interesting as it is a theory about an exploded planet in the solar system metaresearch.org... ,. Though the mechanism for such an explosion could be a great many thing's.
Where I find it in part fails is that in the centre of the earth though maybe not a vaccum there is going to be a point of zero gravity* where the mass of the planet is surrounding it, since the mass is around it and the mass focuses the gravity well it must therefore pull outward which would to my mind at least prohibit the capture and formation of these particles, at least in a natural gravity void like such (though the theory in itself though not proven has merit and in an ideal situation whom know's if it would work).
Anyway how do we really know that our percieved Reality is not in a state of flux and that the law's of physic's remain constant as in fact as light and energy travelled faster then the speed of light just after the big bang for a infinitisimal time they apparently are no fixed and can fluctuate.
In the end maybe it is litterally the mind of God which stabilizes the reality and enable's it to even exist, some very high ranking quantum physicists have found faith (maybe not in any given religion) after the quantum structure of the universe as they percieved it gave them no rational alternative, conscious observation changes the state of quantum reactions almost as though we affect reality and perhaps to a small degree steer ourselves through the mulitple realitys that may exist for any outcome by simply observing, this sounds like metaphysics but is grounded in quantum physic's.


* (in relation to the earth as there is no such thing as ZERO gravity as gravity is a universal constant which is focused in areas of superfield/superstring compression (where the universe is scrunched up as in matter))

If "Expanding Earth Tectonics" is to be accepted, how does someone explain this:

www.globalpost.com...

and this:

en.wikipedia.org... (See Geology Section)

I'm stilll digging up info on the Cascade Range and the Wasatch Range. From what I have read so far, they, too, are growing. I'm sure other ranges have been listed as still growing, also.

Next question: If the earth is expanding, where is all this material coming from and will the Earth, eventually, become a hollow earth??

I'm not trying to diss anyone for there beliefs or research... but I'm trying to put forth legitimate questions. (Unless they have already been answered).

a reply to: Olivine

Just a quick question for those reading.
Are tectonic plates fixed (in numbers)?
What i mean by that; Is it possible that 2 or more tectonic plates merge together or new plates ' born' ?

a reply to: UnixFE

Maybe if we see the additional material like living cells(multiplication).
We all know they talk about the earth being alive in some way we don't yet fully understand.

a reply to: Ohio_Ron

Why people always come up with the hollow earth when talking about the EEH?
I'm guessing it's because of the word 'expanding'
Maybe growing earth would be more appropriate?

About the extra material, I hope they do more investigation into the theory of the ionic growing earth, see what others come up with.

a reply to: murph3010

That was just a short video, if you want references and more detailed information you'll have to read his book.

Do your own research is all good, on many subjects, but there is still the fact of our education program.
In most cases, choices are not provided and we are being pushed in their direction, whoever they might be.
This can result in some people who can't even be permitted to ask questions. But all this is another topic.

I find the ideas from your first paragraph difficult to believe.
If we make a small comparison between now and then, if i'm not mistaken the biggest oviparous animal today is the ostrich. But he is still small compared to the biggest animals living today, no? So eggs-no eggs, i don't see the connection.

I've heard about the extra oxygen, I guess i'll have to research that part as i'm not familiar between the connection oxygen and size.
I'm also not following with, the hotter the climate the larger animals can grow? Why do they believe that the extinction of the mammoths was caused by a rising temperature in the climate? Well ok they don't know yet, but that's one of the ideas.
Also in competition size doesn't always matter(in many cases of today it doesn't) It could get you an advantage for a period of time, that i understand but eventually size doesn't really matter
Maybe the carnivores weren't 'massive' compared to the herbivores of that time but compared to the polar bear, which is the biggest carnivore living today, i say that's massive.
biggest carnivorous dinosaurs

So no this doesn't cover all the reasons.

Pardon me if i skipped any thing that covered this thought.

Logic says we are adding mass. This theory is not off the table. How would added mass NOT cause occasional expansion of the crust if extra material reaches earth from space daily and is pulled into the crust by natural actions of this planet?

Has Phage not considered this fact is his race to debunk everything on ATS as if the brilliant brain of his is geared for that one thing to the point he appears so often to be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Logically speaking more mass means more material than was on the earth before. What more do we need to know to conclude that HAS to be a source of this theoretical idea and it has merit? I would respond to the length between events as random mass buildup, a tipping point is established and a trigger event occurs.

Oh and one more thought., The huge earthquakes we had in the last decade were observed to have moved the tilt of the earth. Evidence I would suggest to support the POSSIBILITY that this theory is true. Significant earthquakes could be a symptom of this theory.

originally posted by: Ohio_Ron
If "Expanding Earth Tectonics" is to be accepted, how does someone explain this:

www.globalpost.com...

and this:

en.wikipedia.org... (See Geology Section)

I'm stilll digging up info on the Cascade Range and the Wasatch Range. From what I have read so far, they, too, are growing. I'm sure other ranges have been listed as still growing, also.

Next question: If the earth is expanding, where is all this material coming from and will the Earth, eventually, become a hollow earth??

I'm not trying to diss anyone for there beliefs or research... but I'm trying to put forth legitimate questions. (Unless they have already been answered).

Good questions.


The material is being added by the tons each day from extra-planetary sources. The material would need to hit a subduction zone to be added to the crust and I feel it COULD expand the earth that way.

a reply to: Justoneman

Well he already did

Maybe if you look at it a different manner.
For something to gain volume doesn't always mean adding more ' stuff ' to it.
A chemical reaction is another possibility.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: intergalactic fire

It's interesting, but I don't think it adds up.

If the Earth were expanding by a constant rate of .6 mm a year, over 4.5 billion years that would come out to a bit less than 1,700 miles. Meaning that the Earth would have started out at around 6,200 mile in diameter. Bringing us to it's current size of 7,918 miles.

Using these numbers it does not fit with the expanding earth theory referenced in your sources.

I feel like it is an assumption to label the rate of expansion as "constant" in the first place. many factors can effect the radius and mass of a celestial object. Asteroid impacts, cosmic dust, comets, solar wind producing water through electrical interactions.

I think a better model would be one with a constant rate (without incident) + environmental factors (incidents) which would serve to accelerate the process due to outside factors (variables) quickly.

Interesting.

From a religious standpoint, if one believes in the story of the flood; the addition of the amount of water spoken of, would have added massive amounts of mass (water weight) to the Earth's surface; it could explain the presence of "giants/titans" (large scale humans) in the antediluvian world (under less mass) and their quick demise recorded shortly after the event (within 700 years, all were dead). As gravity increased quickly due to the scale of increase of Earth's mass over a short period of time.

Great thread.

a reply to: Justoneman

The huge earthquakes we had in the last decade were observed to have moved the tilt of the earth.

No. Earthquakes do not affect the tilt of the Earth. Very large quakes can affect the figure axis of the Earth a very slight (and unmeasurable) amount. The movement of the tides and atmosphere have a greater effect.

Gross also estimates that the Chile earthquake shifted Earth's figure axis by about three inches (eight centimeters).

Deviating roughly 33 feet (10 meters) from the north-south axis around which Earth revolves, the figure axis is the imaginary line around which the world's unevenly distributed mass is balanced.

To explain the difference, Keith Sverdrup, a seismologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, likened Earth to a spinning figure skater holding a rock in one hand. The rotational axis of the skater is still down the middle of the body, he said, but the skater's figure axis is shifted slightly in the direction of the hand holding the rock.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

The material is being added by the tons each day from extra-planetary sources. The material would need to hit a subduction zone to be added to the crust and I feel it COULD expand the earth that way.

Even if 300,000,000 tons were added on a daily basis it would only expand the Earth's radius by 1% over a period of a billion years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

The huge earthquakes we had in the last decade were observed to have moved the tilt of the earth.

No. Earthquakes do not affect the tilt of the Earth. Very large quakes can affect the figure axis of the Earth a very slight (and unmeasurable) amount. The movement of the tides and atmosphere have a greater effect.

Gross also estimates that the Chile earthquake shifted Earth's figure axis by about three inches (eight centimeters).

Deviating roughly 33 feet (10 meters) from the north-south axis around which Earth revolves, the figure axis is the imaginary line around which the world's unevenly distributed mass is balanced.

To explain the difference, Keith Sverdrup, a seismologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, likened Earth to a spinning figure skater holding a rock in one hand. The rotational axis of the skater is still down the middle of the body, he said, but the skater's figure axis is shifted slightly in the direction of the hand holding the rock.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

 

The material is being added by the tons each day from extra-planetary sources. The material would need to hit a subduction zone to be added to the crust and I feel it COULD expand the earth that way.

Even if 300,000,000 tons were added on a daily basis it would expand the Earth's radius by 1% over a period of a billion years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks Phage for the well thought out answer. It is my star on it.

I think the > 1% comment makes sense if we could quantify the mass entering the earth to be low. Adding mass to the crust simply has to be happening. Whatever the possible tipping point or actual trigger event for a lurch outward of the crust is, I am not sure I would be able to pinpoint if I was right. But the crust could be expanding very subtly as in some almost infinitesimal daily movement that would be hard to quantify on a daily measurement but might be quantifiable over centuries, and certainly millions of years seems reasonable.

I would certainly think that 300 million tons daily could be enough over centuries to build to a critical point if the 'sudden lurch' theory is plausible. The spin of the earth would be in play for smoothing out the distribution of the material. This, I would suspect, should be kicking the lighter materials up. Against the gravity that keeps it close to the earth, it would not be able to escape (naturally).

Something has to be happening over time to the earth concerning the additional mass. It appears to me the earth would be expanding just by definition as the mere presence of the additional matter and it's accompanying mass are building up. We can say it does not shrink because of added material over time unless we become a black hole.

a reply to: Justoneman

I would certainly think that 300 million tons daily could be enough over centuries to build to a critical point if the 'sudden lurch' theory is plausible.

It is thought that 300 tons of material arrive daily on average. I used 1 million times that amount (an absurdly high amount) to show how little of a change it actually represents. But why would added material build to a sudden lurch outward? If you spread material evenly over a surface does it suddenly reach a point where it would fluff up more? Why? The tendency is for dust to become more and more compacted, not to suddenly get poofity.

It appears to me the earth would be expanding just by definition as the mere presence of the additional matter and it's accompanying mass are building up.

Yes. On the order of, at the most, a matter of a few miles over the course of a billion years. It is an insignificant amount in comparison to the mass of the entire earth. Using the extremely exaggerated value, it means the circumference of the globe would increase by 238 miles (over a period of one billion years). Africa and South America have separated by more than 6 times that distance in less than 1/6th the amount of time. They didn't lurch apart, they have been, and still are moving away from each other for 140 million years.

I don't understand what is so attractive about the EEH. There is little evidence to support it and far more that supports plate tectonics. Is it a throwback to the idea that all the stars and planets circled the Earth? That the Earth itself is immobile? Does that give rise to the idea that continents can't move?

a reply to: intergalactic fire
Sorry for the tardiness in my reply.

According to Plate Tectonics, no the number of plates is not fixed.
Plates are broken into smaller pieces and ultimately destroyed through subduction: an example of that would be the Farallon plate.

New crustal material is extruded at mid-ocean ridges, where it is attached to existing plates, making them larger. That process can be seen in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, most easily in Iceland.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I don't understand what is so attractive about the EEH. There is little evidence to support it and far more that supports plate tectonics. Is it a throwback to the idea that all the stars and planets circled the Earth? That the Earth itself is immobile? Does that give rise to the idea that continents can't move?

Well to prove such a theory and matching it with other observations in a similar spin like Pangea, would be a step in establishing/understanding the long term mechanism that is driving the changes we see on on our planet. It seems so obvious that the material being added to the planet gets pulled into the crust. It also seems obvious that we have been wondering (or wandering) through the wilderness of ignorance of the actual changes that the geological records reveal. Something big like expansion tickles the brain to delve further. Curiosity lingers for more data wherever it takes us.

a reply to: Justoneman

It seems so obvious that the material being added to the planet gets pulled into the crust.

Yes. The small amount of matter accreting from space would be subducted just as tectonic plates are. Compared to the mass of the entire Earth the accreted amount, even if a million times greater than estimated, make an insignificant contribution to the size of the Earth.

Evidence does not show that the Earth expands. Evidence shows that the Earth has not expanded for at least 250 million years.
Evidence does show that tectonic plates move about. Evidence shows that that have done so relatively recently.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

It seems so obvious that the material being added to the planet gets pulled into the crust.

Yes. The small amount of matter accreting from space would be subducted just as tectonic plates are. Compared to the mass of the entire Earth the accreted amount, even if a million times greater than estimated, make an insignificant contribution to the size of the Earth.

Evidence does not show that the Earth expands. Evidence shows that the Earth has not expanded for at least 250 million years.
Evidence does show that tectonic plates move about. Evidence shows that that have done so relatively recently.

I am not inclined to say we have solid proof of either position if you consider 250 million years is just time to the earth. And maybe an exaggeration of the tonnage seems a good way to handle this from your point of view but it seems reasonable to think about the billions of years this has had a chance to occur. Surely, the definition of expansion would have to include the adding of mass over time. It is hard to completely understand the mechanism without some reliable measurement of what would be an almost impossible thing to measure. We can only speculate. Your reasoning is certainly reasonable even if I am leaning the other way. If it IS some incremental series of events it would be unnoticed without 1st hand data being kept for eon's. Therefore i grant, there isn't much to go on.

My explore and wonder side of me wants to explore the possibilities but the data more than probably is not adequate to write a paper about to win a Nobel. In this, I see a subject that lacks enough data to end the speculation by those who would poke holes in the current paradigm. What drove the expansion 250 million years ago is pure speculation but it suggests there is a history for such events. Your observations bring about the firing of most all of my synapses Phage.