Growing earth theory explains a few things

Nothing saying the tectonic plates,can't actually be stretch marks.Besides you are all wrong the world is flat the catholic church(supplant science if you like) say's it so !

This is how so called 'science' seems to operate, ie they will not accept the evidence staring them in the face unless they have a ready made explanation for it. Not surprising I suppose because institutions are social entities and operate according to social criteria - ie its all about money prestige reputation, tenure control etc etc.

The Earth has expanded enormously in the last 250 mil yrs from the original crust (continental land mass) by creating all of the ocean floor. It is all perfectly obvious if you actually bother to look at the evidence.

Plate tectonics and especially the myth of subduction is a total failure as a theory it was rushed through as soon as they found out about sea floor spreading and had therfore to avoid an expanding earth explanation.
see - www.ncgt.org... for a comprhensive list of papers detailing the failure of plate tectonics.

The fact that they cant account for the increased mass/gravityshould actually be irrelevent - but thats not how scientists operate - same as they for instance denied rocks fell from the sky until they had an explanation.

The real truth is that Earth/Gaia the Sun, planets etc are living organisms and they grow. We live in a multi dimensional and multi density universe. Granted this is not the province of the sciences at present - but then that is why virtually all of their current theories are blatantly false.














www.ncgt.org...

Star and flag for thinking outside the box!

If we didn't have people thinking outside the box we would still be worrying about falling off the edge of the world.

The growing earth theory is a pet of mine, and honestly, the way so many people react so vehemently against it makes me think more that it may be true.

My own accumulation of notions about it is on a grander scale. Science tells us that what we can see and measure and experience makes up about 3% of what's actually out there. That suggests to me that everything we can see out in space is actually a whole lot more complicated and beautiful, if we were able to see more of that invisible 97%. Many cultures have considered the sun to be a living, sentient being, and I can't argue with that. I can't prove it either, but our modern society's obsession with the notion that things aren't true unless we can prove them is niave and closed minded.

My theory is that the sun literally gives birth to each planet in it's system in turn. The hollow earth theory can be joined in here if you like, with the planet's hard surface providing a womb like protection for the growing, baby sun inside. The planets start out small, as ejected matter, and are sent out into orbit. In it's early millenia, it's kept close to the sun, but then as debris impacts from space, at a rate of about 1,000 tons per year, over the course of several thousand millenia it must reach a point where that tonnage has to go somewhere. This planet is ancient by our standards, and we don't have a global problem of billions of tons of space dust sitting on the earth's surface or turning our oceans into mud, so it must be somewhere. The earth is constantly eroding itself and rebuilding itself, and that extra matter, untold billions of tons of rock dust, must be incorporated into the mix, increasing the planet's mass, and therefore it's size, in much the same way that we take on new cellular matter, the building blocks of our own bodies, when we eat. As the planet's mass increases, as it grows, it moves outward in a spiral, moving farther and farther out from it's mother.

In my picture of things, each planet gets it's turn in the Goldilocks zone, where animal and plant life can thrive. That provides us with our "ancient aliens", our older brothers and sisters, or cousins, who lived like we do now a very very long time ago. We look at the planets further out than us and presume they're liveless, but we're only looking on the surface of a planet that's outside the Goldilocks zone. There may be someone home, they've just drawn the curtains and we can't see in. I love David Childress's notion that with a civilisation grand enough, with the knowledge and technology, and inclination, you could gather up loads of rock, melt it with a nuclear explosion, then blow it like glass into a moon. That advanced civilisation could well be creating life and tide bringing moons and then moving them into position, orbitting a planet just entering the right stage of it's life.

But, it's all a theory, as is everything. All of scientific knowledge is just what we reckon right now, and it's all subject to being thrown out in 20 years because someone comes up with a better theory, or something happens that doesn't fit the model, so the model has to be thrown away. In our modern world of funding, cirriculums and the scientifically religious, change is no easier now than it was 1000 years ago. Our current scientific "understanding" of the universe is wrong. I know this, because it's always been proven wrong in the past, and we've not yet ventured out far enough to observe and record in context ourselves, so we absolutely must still be wrong. But that's the joy of real science. There's no ego in science, it's accepted that we're in all likelihood wrong about everything, but that's what drives the inquisitive mind to think and to dream, and it's only the thinkers and dreamers who have any chance of stumbling across the truth. Those who stick their heels in and insist we're already right, well, they're destined for a life of being arrogantly wrong.

I didn't intend to start a fight between people, I just was tossing around ideas that people might have liked to read about. Sorry for the way this thread went. I clearly stated my in my preface that it was just that and never intended to debate the issue as I understand it is not scientifically proven "yet".

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

This is how so called 'science' seems to operate, ie they will not accept the evidence staring them in the face unless they have a ready made explanation for it.

No it's not. Hopefully you know that?

Science works by testing a hypothesis. The EE hypothesis has been tested. And failed. Big time. Same happened with the flat earth hypothesis. And the whole turtles all the way down thingie.

This doesn't mean that current theories on the Earth and geological processes are right - only that based on current knowledge they provide a far better model for actual observations and data. One thing every scientist knows is that sooner or later new evidence will lead to a re-apprasial of current theories and maybe even a rejection of them in favour of a better one. A better one, not a much worse one

The EE hypothesis is an interesting exercise in scientific thinking - which it seems many people fail. Because rather than think for themselves they just accept whatever the great god youtube tells them.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

The Earth has expanded enormously in the last 250 mil yrs from the original crust (continental land mass) by creating all of the ocean floor. It is all perfectly obvious if you actually bother to look at the evidence.

You've obviously not looked at the evidence (a clue: it's not on youtube). But anyway, what happened during the preceding 4,450,000,000 years?

reply to post by SG-17


I read a few posts of you and you seem to think with your 19 years you have seen everything, understood everything and everyone else is a complete dumbass ...nice logic - deny ignorance ...yea sure, keep going SG-17

Btt. Expanding earth theorie isn´t that far fetched ...I bet that all those nay sayers do not know that scientists register a slowing of earth rotation since 30 years with the help of atomic clocks. According to the principle of angular momentum this should imply that earth is expanding.

"Our definition of one second is based upon the duration of one earth rotation in the year 1900. The earth rotation itself is changing - on the one side there is the tidal abrasion which causes earth to slow down and on the other side there are changes in the distribution of mass in the earth itself. Because of this we had to add about 1sec to the day every 18 month in the past 30 years."

"According to the principle of angular momentum a slowing in earth rotation would involve a gain in mass and therefor an expanding earth. In numbers this 1sec every 18month or 0,7sec a year would translate to an expansion of 19cm."
Prof. Konstantin Meyl

video (in german, no translation available)

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.

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.

I know you can't help that things "pop into your head" but you might try popping some real science in there, too.
First, crystals don't just spontaneously generate heat. Heat is very simply a reflection of the movement of particles in a substance. And a crystal has its particles locked in a lattice - that's why it is a crystal. The heat at the core of the earth is a function of a couple of things:first; the incredible pressure of 6x10^24 kilograms of mass of the earth being squeezed by the earth's own gravitation. If you compress something, it gets hot. Feel the tube of a bicycle pump when you compress the air in the cylinder. Second, the heaviest "stuff" of which the earth is made tends to be located near the center. And that stuff includes uranium and the trans-uranic elements, which are radioactive and generate heat by nuclear decay.
And your theory of gravity is enough to give someone a headache. The gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon is a function of the mass of both objects. It is quantified by the equation mass no. 1 times mass no 2, divided by the distance between the objects squared. If either the moon's or the earth's mass increased, the gravitational attraction would be increased. The earth doesn't just pull on the moon. The moon also pulls on the earth. That's a big reason for tides. If the moon and the earth masses were increasing, the orbit of the moon would decay, and it would spiral down into the earth with an increasing speed and decreasing orbital periodicity. If you want to quantify these conclusions, you can use the equations of celestial mechanics at www.braeunig.us...
These things are fun to explore. But it really does help that exploration to have a good grounding in classical mechanics, calculus, physical chemistry, and thermodynamics. Study Kepler, Newton, Bohr, Boltzman, and if you really want to get into gravity, Einstein's General Theory. And if you want to consider more than a two body problem, get to a point where you understand the mathematics of perturbational mechanics.

reply to post by benevolent tyrant


Exactly, and I think that it's a very widely held misconception amongst those who cling to science for their answers in the same way that other people cling to religious dogma. Everyone's in the same boat, really. We are all on this planet with no clue of how we got here or why, and we want to be able to rest easy at night knowing that somebody has the answers and we're not all just clueless. For some people, religion offers them that peace of mind that there aren't any unanswered questions, and for others, it's an equally "on faith" absolute assuredness that science has answered everything, and we understand the universe around us.

The notion that we're really just working it out as we go along, and that absolutely everything we think we know could be proven wrong at any second scares the wotsit out of a lot of people, so they refuse to accept that notion and argue down anyone who suggests that science may be wrong, which is ironically the entire purpose of science, and the goal of every true scientist is to prove things wrong, and to come up with a better hypothesis.

Truth is, we don't know, but we're working on finding out. The only way to do that is to loose the ego of "being right" and consider things that seem impossible, because we live in a world where things that were once considered impossible are actually quite commonplace.

reply to post by SG-17

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

The amount of dimensions the crust of earth moves in has little to do with wether or not it is expanding.

I suppose that you have never heard of the Theia impact.

Theia impact? Thats only a little less of a hypothesis / speculation than this thread. Not saying its wrong, because I find it curious indeed, but just pointing out the fact that its not proven.

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.

While I wont argue the potential plausibility of this theory, I will say that there are many other points that are also potentially possible. Have we been into the core of the earth? Last i checked our main source of evidence was based off of Earthquake tests. This is assuming we can predict just how an earthquake is going to react to all the different types of mass. This is also assuming we know all the different types of mass below the surface. Regarding the fact we havent been through the crust ever, how can we be sure we know whats down there, and until that time it is speculation. PS, I only wrote this because of your tone.

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

To the clever people here...

Would it be possible for the Earth to have originally been a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. ?

Only a lot of the matter that is/was atmosphere has been converted (by some means, possibly Plasma) into Fluid matter (water) and solid matter (earth), As in 1800 or so litres of Hydrogen and Oxygen would make only one litre of water, Amounting to a decrease in atmosphere but an increase in solid planet.

Would this effect the Mass and Radius that gravity is worked out by ?

reply to post by ThisIsMyName


Check my earlier post, there's 1,000 tons of space dust falls on the earth each year, plus all the other space rocks that land. 1,000 tons may not be a massive amount (unless it all lands on your house), but the earth is ancient, by our terms anyway. All that mass HAS to go somewhere, so if the earth isn't expanding, we should really be covered by space dust.

I wish I could give this thread 100 flags because imo this is exciting and what Michael says rings so true to me.

I have always thought the Earth to be expanding...as with other Planets. I look at them as alive and evolving.

Science is always changing and I welcome change.

OP thinking and talking about ideas is how we all learn.

I am so glad you brought your thoughts into this Forum.

reply to post by TheIrvy


I did a quick search, this is a very rough estimate but a 1000 tons of space dust can not be much more than 3000 cubic meters (a metric ton = 1000 kg) (limestone being 1201kg a cubic meter but somethings are more some are less).

Can we do a rough formula based on how old the earth is to determine if this is really feasible to the amount of expansion required to push the continents apart?

reply to post by ThisIsMyName


Well according to a quick google, we estimate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Assuming that the rate of new matter has remained constant over that time at 1,000 tons per year, and assuming that 4.5 billion years is accurate, we're talking about 4,500,000,000,000 tons of new matter to account for that wasn't here when the earth was born.

Of course, that's the dust, that's not including the extra mass of all the meteors and such like that have fallen over the past 4.5 billion years.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

So we readily dismiss the Expanding Earth Theory because the “accepted” dogma is Plate Tectonics – a theory whose most basic mechanism cannot be understood or explained?

No.

We falsify EE because it fails to explain observations. In the same way that the flate Earth theory does.

Plate tectonics may not be perfect and we accept that it will in time be modified.

Have you actually studied the subject?

reply to post by MichaelNetzer




Thank you. sir, for stating what I wanted to say, and probably better than I could have done it myself.

To you nay sayers above who think you are so smart......just remember EVERYTHING that was accepted as true has ALWAYS eventually turned out to be WRONG. It is the height of hubris to assume that, everyone was always wrong before, but NOW we are RIGHT. That is so childish it is almost unbelievable, until you see that most scientists today think in this childish prideful way.