Expanding earth theory now plausible science?

a reply to: Justoneman

What drove the expansion 250 million years ago is pure speculation but it suggests there is a history for such events.

You misunderstood. There is evidence that the Earth has not expanded in the past 250 million years. That does not mean that there is evidence that it did expand prior to that.

However, there is evidence that plate tectonics has been occurring for more than 3 billion years.

a reply to: Phage

Oh yea, I was following your thought process and conclusions on both of those things.

In essence I was basically pointing out how evidence that the earth has not expanded in over 250 million years is really the same as saying the last expansion was at some point in time that is considered over 250 million years ago. I can't avoid that logic.

It either did or did not expand and any evidence that it hasn't in x amount of time very well could mean it did before that time frame, or the statement would be reported as "not ever". With not ever now off the table, expansion at some point in the past, no matter how distant, must be what is left( Ala Sherlock Holmes reasoning: "whatever is left, has to be the truth"). How much it did expand is minor to the argument but the mile or so addition to the layers of the crust observation you mentioned would end up being significant because of the circumference of the Earth being 24000 miles and I would not pretend to know the area in cubic miles of the earth.

a reply to: watchitburn

Take a look at some of the information here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
in which in particular this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
and specifically the answer to the post above: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are so many things that point to an expanding earth, and theories now as to how that could happen, including the subject of the OP - something that was lacking when the original hypothesis was mooted.

I always like my Dearly Beloved's simple but telling observation

"If you look at the planet it is like a cake, rising in the middle." An apt description of the mid-Atlantic and mid-Pacific ridges.

She then goes on to say, "if you look at the planets the further away from the Sun generally the more of a gaseous giant the planet is. As the planets of the solar system hurtle through space they are imperceptibly slowing and their orbits are getting wider and wider. One day Earth ill be a gaseous giant, and mercury will be in the habitable zone."

There is no doubt in my mind that we are on an expanding earth. There are too many pointers to the fact to be able to deny it, unless of course you are a scientist!

a reply to: NoExpert

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?

The Moon's orbit is NOT stable.

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. (The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.) The Moon probably couldn't have formed closer than 3 Earth radii because tidal forces from the Earth would just pull it apart again, and it is unlikely that the impact could have ejected material further than 5 Earth radii. It's not a totally easy questions to answer though as it depends a lot on the (unknown) details of the impact and how the hot material behaved in space.

The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

In what way does an expanding earth preclude the formation of mountain ranges? Additionally perhaps you would like to expand on the paleomagnetic data problem?

Subduction zones, or more correctly Wadati-Behioff Zones have other explanations that plate tectonics which is incapable of explaining the missing thousands of kilometres of 'subjection' zone needed to make the theory work.

a reply to: PuterMan

I find the expanding Earth theory very interesting. I think it's possible, but I'm not in a position to know for sure.

My post was just showing that the math referenced in the OP does not add up. It doesn't negate the possibility, it just shows that the way they got to their conclusion is faulty.

I'm going to dig through your links though, thanks.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

An answer to your question regarding a relationship between dinosaurs and an expanding earth can be found by Googling..."ionic expanding earth and dinosaurs". It is entitled..."Why were the dinosaurs so large?"

A noteworthy connection is made between dinosaur fossils and an expanding earth.

Ionix