Growing earth theory explains a few things

I preface this with the simple statement. "This was just something on my mind I felt like sharing" No science is involved in this, just theories. Enjoy.

With the growing earth theory where the earth grew to its current size from a planet that was half the size or smaller it explains a few pretty important things, that are sort of mysteries.

1. On a smaller earth the water would have covered most if not all of the land, which would explain why coral skeletons as well as calcium limestone is pretty much found on land through out the world. I know here in Texas, geologist speculate from the fossil records that we were under a mile or more of ocean millions of years ago.

2. Dinosaurs seem to have been to large to survive the gravity of a current sized earth and on a smaller earth they would have started off in the oceans growing to huge sizes and then found it easy to walk out onto newly exposed land masses as they evolved legs. As the earth grew larger and the mass and gravity increased the animals got smaller and smaller.

3. The molten core of the earth seems to have been hot for quite a large chunk of the earth history, and after watching the documentary on the giant crystal caves, it occurred to me that the center of the earth if it was crystal structured could be what is generating the heat. The crystal put off a good amount of heat in the caves that were found and those are one type of crystal that is fairly close to the surface. I can imagine crystals like diamonds growing at the core of the planet giving off rock melting temperatures forcing out incredible pressures on the surrounding mantle and crust as the crystals grow in size, so does the earth.

4. The crystal structures of that size may under some theories produce a magnetic field which may be part of the earth magnetic field. Magnetite is commonly found in volcanic flows and in rock all over the world. Magnetite has a crystal structure and may be a primary growing mineral at the core of the earth and a source for the earth magnetic field as well

5. If the earth is not alone in growing, and similar objects such as our own moon are also growing, that might explain why the moon seems to be moving away from the earth. As the moon grows in mass it would take a larger orbit because the gravitational pull that the earth has on the moon would be less as the mass of the moon increases. The real question is which one is growing faster. Logic tells me the earth should be growing fast and thus pull the moon in closer, but that clearly is not the case. So maybe the moon is growing and doing it faster than the earth?

These are just things that pop in my head from time to time.

First star and flag.Like your logic Short but to the point secondline

I'd been toying around with this possibility for a while now. If matter (as in coalesced matter, planets and galaxies) are expanding away from each other, what if they are also at a lower factor, growing in size also. If, and I'm not under the impression that it exactly is, the universe is expanding, maybe the matter does too. Hard to measure in the now if every bit of matter is growing in size, no comparable point of refrerence... but looking far back in the past you might see evidence of it. Pangea, large dinosaurs (more oxygen in the air back then sounds a little hokey.)

Another part of it is, what if dinosaurs were much smaller than their fossils lead us to believe. If a small cat was entombed and fossilized in rock, and 60 million years later, it might be 15 feet tall. When I see dinosaur skeletons and think of them much smaller and more in line with todays crocs and dragons, it's way more easy for me to visualize them. I know there is some pitfalls to this, as there is very small fossils found today that if they were smaller wouldn't make sense.

I thought about an experiment to test this theory, to somehow measure a stone over a few years. It seems it would prove it wrong outright, but it's also a hard thing to measure if the mechanism for growth is not uniform, and too many variables. It would be such a slow process, that the expansion of a few nanometers from heat in an hour would be a few thousand times more than the "underlying" growth process. I also just thought... it would be hard to measure because anything in this theory, any mechanism to measure, would also be growing, even water in a volume test. It's interesting to think about.

Thought you might like this.
Enjoy

reply to post by robwerden


I suppose that you have never heard of tectonic plates, and how the land on the Earth is constantly moving, in all 3 dimensions.


I suppose that you have never heard of elephants. Muscle and bone are incredibly strong, they can even be stronger than structural steel.

I suppose that you have never heard of the Theia impact. The inner core is solid iron-nickel, the outer core liquid iron-nickel. The intense gravity that formed the planet superheated the core and the impact of Theia, besides forming the Moon, also reheated the core. Something as massive as the core of the Earth takes billions of years to cool.

I suppose that you never heard of ferrite iron. A superheated iron core would produce powerful magnetic fields.

I suppose that you never heard of the Moon having a high angular momentum, thus allowing it to slowly escape orbit. When Theia hit it caused the Moon to be created by the ejected matter from both planets. It was moving just fast enough that it slowly overcomes the gravity of the Earth and slowly drift away.

reply to post by SG-17


Don't be such a douche ok? He does make an interesting point.

reply to post by CrashUnderride


There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by CrashUnderride

 

There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.

Well, I beg to differ with you but "the Growing Earth theory" is a scientific theory..... just not an accepted one.

Scientists such as Otto Hilgenberg (1896-1976) in Germany and Samuel Warren Carey (1911-2002) in Australia, working in the years before World War II, not only noted how the continents bordering the Atlantic appeared to fit into each other if pushed together. They also observed, and made models to show, that the Pacific, Indian and Southern Ocean continents also fitted together but as one mass entirely covering an Earth half its present size. SOURCE

Hilgenberg and Cary were two early proponents of the idea of what is now been termed "the Growing Earth Theory". While this concept has fallen out of the realm of accepted science, one need only recall that in the 70's, scientists were predicting an impending ice age. A few decades later, the scientists were heralding our impending doom with Global Warming. Even more recently, many of these same scientists were suggesting that a 'mini - ice age" was heading our way. Frankly, the only real consensus that anyone has reached with any certainty is that we are facing global "climate change". Scientists are not infallible and, clearly, their views and theories can and do change.

The point is that this is a concept that has been receiving more and more attention, in part due to the brilliant animations by legendary comic book artist, Neal Adams, which seem to demonstrate -- clearly -- a geological process that, to a layman, makes sense.

Michael Netzer, a legendary comic book artist in his own right, has taken up the Neal Adams' cause, so to speak, and provides additional information on a theory that has gained acceptance in popular and scientific circles. Check out the info on Michael Netzer's On Line Portal.

Incidentally, Michael is a member here at ATS.....hopefully he can be brought into this discussion.

I find the growing earth theory quite interesting, myself. Enjoyed your post!

reply to post by SG-17


But one readily accepted by those who have little if any understanding of geology and rely on youtube for their "education"

Anyway, I have some questions:

1. how does Rodinia fit in to an expanding Earth theory?
2. if there was no oceanic crust, and a smaller Earth, and water covered all the Earth's surface, just how and when did life emerge on land?
3. And if all the worlds continental crusts fits together c 250ma then does that mean that for most of its existence Earth has NOT been expanding and only started to do so very recently? Or, if it has been expanding at roughly the same rate, does that means that 4 billion years ago the Earth was the size of a pea? And if so, does that also mean that all the zircon we've found around the word dating back that far actually came from somewhere else?

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by CrashUnderride

 

There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.

Every point you made above is just theory and at one point was a joke. Why trash other theories? Maybe consider the possibility humans may never know. Our life spans are to short.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

The point is that this is a concept that has been receiving more and more attention, in part due to the brilliant animations by legendary comic book artist, Neal Adams, which seem to demonstrate -- clearly -- a geological process that, to a layman, makes sense.

Exactly. But not to anyone who knows the subject

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by CrashUnderride

 

There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.

That's a bold statement you make, especially when you consider how little we know about the way the universe evolves and what weird and wonderful mechanism's are at play within our universe. (Your statement gave me a few laughs, thank you.)

OK back to being serious, the idea of an expanding planet, in this case the Earth should NOT be discounted out-of-hand, even though it does sound kinda far fetched at the moment. Consider if-you-will, the following way-out theory's that were later found to be true.


1. The Round Earth theory.
2. Perturbation theory and the existence of Neptune
3. Comets being a celestial phenomenon
4. The expanding universe
5. Atoms
6. Quarks
7. Tycho Brahe and the "stella nova"
8. Black Holes
9. Heliocentric solar system
10. The Big Bang theory.

All of the above were once considered as wacky idea's according to the scientific community or popular belief at that time, however, as far fetched as they all sounded, they were all proven true, or accepted as true later on.

I personally do believe planets do expand over time, whether its because of heat expansion from the core or by other means, rather like a balloon filled with an internal gas/heat source. I just hope I'm still around when this Expanding Earth theory is also proven true.

~Freelancer~

Originally posted by Freelancer

All of the above were once considered as wacky idea's according to the scientific community or popular belief at that time, however, as far fetched as they all sounded, they were all proven true, or accepted as true later on.

Because they were shown to provide a better model to explain observed facts. Whereas EE provides a far worse model than existing theories and frankly doesn't explain some very basic facts. Not to say contravening basic physical laws.

If you wish to consider EE as a valid scientific hypothesis then it must be subjcted to scientific method. Can it be falsified? Yes, it has. Thus it is rejected.

If course, maybe someone can then amend the hypothesis to provide a more robust model that cannot be falsified? Until then it's as valid as the idea the Earth was blown out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Don't pander to ignorance

Originally posted by robwerden
I preface this with the simple statement. "This was just something on my mind I felt like sharing" No science is involved in this, just theories. Enjoy.

If you're here to learn, I hope you learn something. In contrast to your post containing no science, my posts do contain science.

If you're here to spread ignorance, you might have better luck doing so at a site which doesn't have the motto "deny ignorance". And no it's not even a theory, you could say it's a hypothesis and one which is quickly proven wrong by even the most rudimentary knowledge of modern geology.

Expanding Earth

Expanding Earth or Growing Earth is a hypothesis asserting that the position and relative movement of continents is due to the volume of the Earth increasing.

Though the hypothesis has been suggested several times historically, the scientific consensus has rejected any major expansion of the Earth, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s.

As fun as it might be to make up "theories" without any science, real theories do indeed involve science, and examination of the evidence.

Originally posted by leemachino
Every point you made above is just theory and at one point was a joke. Why trash other theories? Maybe consider the possibility humans may never know. Our life spans are to short.

A theory requires evidence to support it. When the evidence contradicts a theory, it's discarded.

People suggesting an expanding Earth theory don't seem to understand the overwhelming evidence for plate tectonics. Now that we can measure movement of plates with extremely high precision using satellites as shown in the following image, there really isn't the room for doubt that you suggest regarding plate tectonics or the expanding Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

Detailed map showing the tectonic plates with their movement vectors.

This thread isn't about climate change, but if you want to make a comparison, it's a far simpler task to use satellites to precisely measure the movement of continents and plates, than it is to try to model the extremely complex fluid dynamics of trillions of molecules of air and water in addition to output from the sun which isn't perfectly constant due to solar cycles, solar flares and CMEs, and other factors. In other words, one is pretty easy, the other is quite difficult. Is it any wonder that we are confident about the easy task but not the hard one? I think not.

Actually the Earth is growing ever so slightly, from the accumulation of cosmic dust and micrometeoroids, but that growth has been pretty small for at least the last 3 billion and probably the last 4 billion years. This is why the wiki article says science rejects any "major" expansion of the Earth. The expansion we know of is very tiny, and doesn't support any ideas in the OP.

It's called conjecture. Look the word up, take a deep breath, and discuss, oppose, or promote and let's learn something. I don't see how this fellow's thought experiment got a few people so upset.

In real life, if you have people sitting around discussing a topic, I don't think you'd have someone just stand up and berate the topic starter. They'd be removed from the social group for being socially maladjusted and just plain curmudgeoun-y. Give the guy a little respect. You come to a *discussion* forum right? There's another place to blurt out hostility behind a computer screen called Youtube.

Originally posted by Freelancer
All of the above were once considered as wacky idea's according to the scientific community or popular belief at that time, however, as far fetched as they all sounded, they were all proven true, or accepted as true later on.

Why are you comparing it to a list of theories proven true? A better list to compare it to would be hypotheses proven false.

Expanding Earth was a hypothesis which has been proven false. It may have been OK to believe it before we had the evidence we have today.

Originally posted by Essan

If you wish to consider EE as a valid scientific hypothesis then it must be subjcted to scientific method. Can it be falsified? Yes, it has. Thus it is rejected.

Let's try to be a little more exact, please. Carey's Expanding Earth model was rejected in the early sixties not because it was falsified. It was rejected because Carey couldn't provide a mechanism for expansion. EE has never been falsified by any scientific terms. It was simply rejected in favor of Plate Tectonics because the latter was an easier working model for science that didn't threaten existing models in particle physics, cosmology, anthropology and other areas.

But convection, the mechanism for subduction, upon which Plate Tectonics relies, has also never been proven in any satisfactory way to a large number of geologists and physicists. Subduction is simply a premise that allowed science to work with a fixed-size Earth and ignore the possibility that it might be growing. It's simply considered "better" because it less upsets existing models. Not necessarily because it's more scientifically sound.

I'm not a scientist. But I've been studying many areas of it for the better part of 30 years now. Neal has spent a decade more on it. What I understand about science is that we have a tendency to lock ourselves into working models in order to be able to work. But historically, science (like every other aspect of our civilization) needs major shake-ups because as we discover new phenomenon and advance our knowledge, then the working models we locked ourselves into start to become obsolete.

Many scientists believe we're on the cusp of such a shake-up today. Which means that our existing theoretical models may not be able to advance our knowledge base much further, and might even be hindering it. As an example, here's a Cosmology Statement, signed by hundreds of scientists, that puts into better light some of the socio-cultural pitfalls that science theory contends with today.

Growing Earth may well be heralding a much wider socio-evolutionary leap that also touches on aspects of our education infrastructures. In this vibrant communications era, the knowledge that was once accessible to only a few, is coming into the hands of the people and shaking the foundations of our social fabric. Growing Earth has strong roots in particle physics that also touch on the newest findings from the LHC super collider. To me, the mechanism for Earth growth emerging from these findings is one of the more fascinating scientific practicalities we have to look forward to on the horizon.

I've been away from the debate for a while and appreciate Benevolent Tyrant's heads up on this thread. Time is short these days but I'll try to come back over the weekend and expand on things a little more for anyone interested. What I'd hope for is that mainstream science supporters tone down the sometimes arrogant approach in which they deliver their opinions. But if things get nasty... well, let's just say that I've been known to bite back. There's too much at stake here to approach such a discussion with a "more knowledgeable than thou" attitude. We all have something to learn here, myself included. Many thanks. -M.

reply to post by SG-17


I suppose you haven't heard of manners. I suppose you haven't learned how to talk to people with respect. I suppose no ever told you comming over as such a smark arse makes you look like a complete dick?

Have some manners, learn to repesct people.

This is a good theroy.

As an addition to the theory: I have always specuated about the over all mass of the earth. If it is growing in any way due to volcanic action or whatever, then that would not affect it's mass. However, I have read that anything up to 78,000 tones of dust and debris falls to earth each year. Source Now, Multiply that by 70 million years to when the dinosaurs were about and you have a sum I can't do! lol But that is a duck of a lot of additional mass on the earth.

I also like your crystal ideas. Do you know about piezo crystals, which produce electricity when under pressure? Other types change in resistance as the presure on them changes (Like the ones in the pickup under the bridge on my guitar!) I wonder how changing presures in the earth change it's magnetic field? This would tie in with some earthquake research which measures electrical activity, and also reported auras above earthqueakes.

I like this topic. S&F OP.

I like those people who call other people ignorant, those are the types who are far more ignorant.

Neal Adams has an interesting growing earth theory which deals with pangea and rodinia.
If you have the time and are interested in this topic I would suggest you look into it.

Here