Even as a young kid in school, I never thought that plate tectonics / Pangea theory sounded quite right. Why would all the land be on one side of the Earth? That just doesn't make any sense.
it can be measured by satellites. But do you have a satellite? Do I have one? Do any of your friends or family have one? No. Organizations have them. What holds an organization together? Money. Money is power and you are cattle. Do you go out into the fields and talk to cows about what matters? No. You keep it to yourself and to those around you. Ever hear of a "secret"? Yeah, everyone keeps secrets. Why so easily dismiss the idea that people with money keep secrets too?
@ScienceWars There's a philosophical principle here: that people are entitled to know the sort of issues that have been raised. Understanding the actual reasoning may, however, be detrimental if one's goal is simply to promulgate insinuations about motives, in which case it is better to make it appear that scientists proposing expansion have no rational grounds whatever to maintain that position in the face of seemingly contrary geodetic evidence.
The methods for measuring our planet are very precise and can detect changes in a fraction of a millimeter, like when measuring the movement of continental plates. In regards to these facts, if the size of the Earth really IS expanding from inside, how come this cannot be observed or measured by satellites or in any other way?
@VoxSweden Expansionist scientists have repeatedly raised the issue of fictitious contractions (see e.g. Koziar's Oct 5 presentation here: ftp://ftp. ingv. it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/pdf%20presentations/
For example, the same data which seems to show shortening of the Europe-Japan distance by ~25 mm/yr (despite contrary geological evidence), could indicate instead a radial expansion of ~16 mm/yr -- regardless of supposed "precision."
@VoxSweden The same reason that 300 years ago the people in the know didn't tell the masses that they knew for a fact that the earth really was round.....
@GanjaStuPipesUp Because... They actually did tell people and it was commonly known that the earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks? Sorry I don't get what you are going on about. Also the earth has been measured by NASA and they revealed that the earth is growing by the width of a human hair every year (not enough to support the expanding earth hypothesis).
The Earth absorbs 25k tons of space dust every year and Google Earth is showing every day the planet gets hit with many large bolides from space (they make a huge splash in the oceans). Pettersson's original estimate of 15 million tonnes of debris every year is appearing more likely all the time.
Since most of the Earth's weight is bacteria there is a slow exponential growth of the mass of the planet. Most of those bacteria are methane producing extremophiles. That methane is the key.
the earth supposed to have grown as a small mass of dust circling around the sun & accumulating mass for billions of years. if It's still circling & has gravity why has it stopped accumulating mass & increasing its size? If it suddenly stopped accumulating mass at which stage did it happen & why?
@nayanmalig No, it did not stop, it started slowly, then increased exponentially, and probably still is. You can find a map and a table of this here: continuitystudios . net /growth
updated map here: continuitystudios . net /advanced
It makes sense that continents can fit together; but is the Earth is expanding, where the additional matter is coming from? is that matter being formed by an event that is similar to the "big bang" ?. another point is the oceans waters, is it coming in from outer space? Third point is time needed for this Earth expansion; I am told of a figure of 180 Millions years, which seems to me to be very short.
@albertsneijMD actually, the continents don't fit together. Don't waste your time on this theory, the scientific consensus does not agree with this. Potholer54 elequently debunked this /watch?v=epwg6Od49e8
@Typhoonbladefist At least the Geological Map of the World, which provides the basic data upon which Maxlow has built his models, is part of the scientific consensus, and the other global data sets he uses to test the models are perfectly mainstream. Potholer54's video doesn't actually mention _any_ of Maxlow's evidence, so can hardly be said to debunk it. It's not the continents that are claimed to fit, but the 'sutures' in the oceans as the isochrons are sequentially retracted back in time.
This is ridiculous. People like this man are viewed as retards by the scientific community. You only have to go to Wikipedia and search for the Earth Expansion Theory to understand why. The Earth Expansion hypothesis is ridiculous and completely non-scientific. No evidence exists to support it. This man clearly does not understand plate tectonics, for if he did, he would not showcase such stupidity.
@xmaneater Again, as in my comment regarding Potholer54's treatment of the subject, the Wikipedia article doesn't actually mention any of the main grounds which have led some geoscientists to propose expansion (or any of the criticisms which those same scientists have made of the alleged refutations - paleomagnetic, space geodetic, etc.) This is a travesty of the Wikipedia policy of impartiality, and has misled many. For a corrective overview, see e.g.: mediafire. com/?7126bae6c0qmjpa
I remember looking at the old earth globe back in school 40 or so years ago and thinking how all the continents together nicely on a smaller planet. To be quite honest i do not recall any teacher totally comfortable with current Pangea break-up theory. Thank you for this important educational video upload.
Here is a new paper (2011) that examined if the Earth is expanding...
"The solid Earth is not expanding within the measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm/yr"
Wu, X., X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi, B. L. A. Vermeersen, R. S. Gross, and I. Fukumori (2011), Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L13304, doi:10.1029/2011GL047450.
@Diamonddavej Have you read the full paper in detail instead of just the summary? Surely what James Maxlow said in his book is that all these papers follow the original Robaudo and Harrison recommendation that the vertical motion be 'restricted to zero because (they considered that) this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18mm/year'. The summary states that expansion is zero but within the main body of the paper you will find that some raw data is removed.
"The solid Earth is not expanding within the measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm/yr."
"Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1σ measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1."
Wu, X., et al. 2011. Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion.
@kaderoder And also the present rate of cosmic bombardment is only very small in comparison to the amount over geological time. Today we have cosmic showers - over geological time we have cosmic storms.
this theory is crazy, and doesn't work with known laws of physics :) but we live in spiritual world in first place, and laws of physics don't explain 'law of attraction' (spiritual concept) as well. I read interesting book written by walter russel, who presents alternative physics, which combines well with growing earth theory. it's weird as well, but mainstream physics which doesn't give explaination to basic things like magnetism, gravity, mass and even light (although they think they are).
@YogiFromEU People always need rationalizations for how things work.
The reality is, We still hadn't had enough time to research everything due to restraints like religion having prevented us from scientific advancement hundreds of years ago.
We need time and with time we will be able to comprehend even gravity. However the need for people to know everything in the universe won't accept this and they will come up with baseless and stupid theories that rationalize what they see without research.
Great presentation. I appreciate the fact that the information was delivered in a very straight forward manner without all the sarcasm and insulting tone. It will be a difficult thing to get geologists and physicists to accept these facts. But, they will eventually be forced to accept it. There is not reason for all the sort of attitudes and defensiveness that has surrounded this subject thus far....from either side.
Unfortunately there is not enough time left for them to come to this conclusion.
Study post glacier rebound .. know it ... don't forget it and don't run out of oil.
Not only she expanding, she is being born anew.
love you guys .. do not lie, only speak truth for the time is short and deceivers will be cut off.
Those who have cause that rapidness of post glacier rebound through nuclear fallout, mining, etc ... your time is short, you better repent and stop deceiving the people
the subduction zones from north end to south end along the coast from New Zealand to Fiji, to japan and on up to Russia experienced a seemingly high number of seismic activity above 5.0 ...additionally a number of volcanoes had notable systemics. I have been watching the charts on line for some months and never seen such solid activity from one end of the planet to another within such narrow margins.
The pangea theory "makes sense", because we've all seen it.... on a flat piece of paper. But put in on an actual sphere, and you will see how little sense it makes. All the land is supposed to be on one side of the earth? And the other just water.?
the big bang? id say it is a firework after going of and we are so small in a bigger universe of universes that time slows down for us cause we are so small but in reality it is going fast and when the fire work stops we stop everything stops sure they say the universe is expanding your sayin the world is expanding just something i though of when i was stoned after smoking a lot of weed ha and the firework can be anything could be someone hitting a hammer and making a spark? you never know
of cause growing...gravitation works only inwards, so during 1000 mln years it can expand greatly, not only dust, but and comets, meteors, asteroids, meteorites and even sun wind and as earth got more mass, the hotter she become which added some more 5% in diameter
im most definitely not trying to be a troll, just wondering, but... where does the water come from in the expanding earth theory? was it from plant life creating the atmosphere binding many hydrogen and oxygen molecules? (once again, I'm not a troll, im just a kid who'se curious)
Good questions, chickenbob. I theorise that water is connected to life, and the more life we have, the more water we get. It's only half-baked at the moment, but I've got a feeling the sun, cosmic rays, life and consciousness makes water grow and generate.
The sun is growing so the distance between earth and the sun remains same because earth is growing too and at the same time moving away from the sun. They are expanding from the center of the universe and if you didnt figure it out yet our sun IS the center of the universe. Idiots that measure zulu time dont know this fact, their equipment however is showing that earth with each new year takes longer and longer to travel around the sun, they simply adjust the clocks on new year with
I don't get it. Satellite data has shown that the earth literally hasn't expanded at all since measurement started. Isn't that the end of this hypothesis?
@Dissapointment4@Diamonddavej James Maxlow said in his book that the papers on satellite data follow the original Robaudo and Harrison recommendation that the vertical motion be 'restricted to zero because (they considered that) this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18mm/year'. Only the summaries state that expansion is zero - within the main body of the paper you will find that raw data has been removed.
we do know that space itself is expanding...and not only expanding...its expansion is accellerating...would that mean that all mass is expanding as well but because space is also expanding it seems as though distances between two points remains constant...but in actuality space and mass actualy are expanding at the same rate therefor creating the illusion that distances are the same...just a thought
@Metamorphosis33 I agree to your point..if the earth did not expand equally then the earth would get smaller and smaller in size reference to space and should disapear alltogether into infininity eventually as space would get incredibly or infinately large. and to me this can explain gravity where is its the expanding earth pushing upwards acelerating in all directions like einsteins elevator metafor I had this thought for many years.
Awesome I remember when this video first came out the neal adams videoand everyone was name calling it, lol, when the old theory crashes it's going be a turning point, people will start to question a lot more scientific dogma.
its very unlike the earth was growing but you would need to show proof of whats happening under the water and under the core not just fit earth like a puzzle and assume its growing base on what your eyes can see ,
plus how our earth can fit 2day like a puzzle was 100% not the same type of puzzle 500millions years ago
What is truly surprising is that people are willing to believe this nonsense. Fancy computer graphics do not make a fact, though many seem to believe it to be so.
This hypothesis was prominent when it was discovered that continents drift, but it was discarded over 50 years ago when plate tectonics was verified beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Were he a real scientist he would try to make the hypothesis fit the facts, and not the other way around.
@Matrixfart No, graphics are not proof, they are merely demonstrating the theory. Maxlow is not an artist and his graphics do not communicate the idea as well as Adams' graphics. Adams does explain his methodology in constructing his graphics. Maxlow explained in his presentation that there are several data sets to support his theory. Hence they both give means for which to replicate and analyze their process. Where is the PT animation which incorporates and explains the oceanic crust geometry?
@Matrixfart The "facts" you are referring to are based on information that had no way of being proven or observed with the technology we had 50 years ago. This theory is throwing a lot of these accepted "facts" out the window and fitting into the relatively new acquired data.
My face is sore from all the face palms. Forget that NO mechanism actually explains this supposed process in these vids, but what about distances between know points on the planet? We are not moving away from ever other point. The circumference is not growing, else travel times would be altering, let alone the significant issue of satellites and other orbits - including GPS. This gut doesn't know what the Sun is made of or how it works!
@SierraBravoOneNiner Try a HeadDesk every once in awhile, it helps you stop doing facepalms because you will kill enough brain cells to actually believe this stuff.
Want some entertainment? Look into the most recent Nexus Conference in 2010 and even Nexus magazine. One topic was "The Apollo Moon Landings - Fact or Fiction?" LMAO! All of the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience in one place. WOW!
Just shows that you can have a degree and be a lunatic. I know a few. A fellow Ph.D. Mathematician at Iowa State who advocated that we "blow up the Moon" to save the Earth.
Many people seem to want to equate growing earth with an increase in mass. I see no reason to suspect that at all. Density is a very easy concept to grasp.
The Sun is one day destined to become a Red Giant, but no one suggests that its going to become more massive. Volume = Mass / Density. The kinetic theory of gases, the activity and increase in average temperature of the sun over billions of years. The state of the primordial earth.
This whole "the earth is expanding" theory is illogical... I haven't taken any science above highschool, but I at least share the logic of those whom know that the earth did NOT grow... what a bunch of stupid bullshit...
Yes, the Earth is expanding, but only due to meteorite and asteroid fall and debris from outer space which fall onto the Earth gravitational pull. This growth can be measured by few kilograms of matter falling on the Earth a year.
@parintelebaiazid Why do you assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment has always been the same as today? Over geological time there could easily have been cosmic storms.
If not wouldn't Earth from its orbit around the sun dive into the sun long time ago, else because of higher mass it must either revolve faster around the sun or take a farther orbit around the sun to stay in gravitational equilibrium with respect to the sun, farther from sun it would also change the climate, I am just wondering.
@eCicerone the weight of the earth stays the same. as the mantel is 4 times as dense as the crust due to gravity and heat. when it comes to the surface it expands. so it is imposible that a light crust can subduct under a plate in to a mantel over 4 times as dense.so you would get an increase in size but weighs the same
@MirageScience Why would you want proof of whether it is true or not? Use your logic! How would earth grow about half of its initial size? It would require mass from the outside of our plants surface. The mass of earth is not increasing thus it cant be growing. In fact earth should rather be shrinking due to another obvious reason: were sending various satellites into space. Those satellites were build out of our earthly materials. Need i say more? This is conspiracy science. Nothing more.
@LiezAllLiez How was the Earth created in the first place? Convential theory states that the Earth grew by cosmic bombardment about 4000 million years ago and then stopped completely. All the expanding Earth theory is saying is that the Earth grew over the last 4000 million years.
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
@Skull666Bones Because they would have to rewrite a whole lot of science, discredit older scientists who spent their entire lives proving this, and a bunch of other nonsense reasons. They would rather just be in denial and agree with the mainstream science than be outcasts.
...expanding one epoch , contrating the next, the important thing is to learn the how & whys , as once a problem is described , a solution becomes easier to resolve.
@waysidemm - Would be nice if a petroleum geologist would respond to your question. Most of the offshore oil deposits are on continental shelf, which is not proposed to be new. I'm not sure what problems the existence of _deep_ water oil may present for theories of oil origins, but such oil (1) seems confined to small slivers of ocean, most of which are still on the slopes of continental shelves and (2) is still associated with sedimentary rock, as in current theory (w/w JM seemingly agrees).
@waysidemm while i am on your side about this, oil doesnt form on/in oceanic crust. it only forms on continental crust so unfortunately their theory can explin oil.
It is true that the amount of gravity is proportional to mass, however the attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. Black holes are known to be collapsed stars, yet the stars do not gain mass or gravity as they collapse. Smaller earth would yield greater gravitational effects due to the decrees in distance between the center of the earth and the bodies inhabiting its surface.
@phylthie not if the earth grew due to matter being created in its center. What u say only applies if the earth is simply expanding without gaining any new mass.
This explains how the fishies got to the land and how we have alot of land animals this day.. Earth was one big sea before, and when its expanding the water levels goes down. Then the landmass sticks out of the water and those little fishies got stuck on land, and then grew some legs according to Darwin's Theory. :)
Dark matter is made of particles small enough 2 pass straight thru the earth & b drawn 2 its center of gravity. Dark matter would then b crushed into sub atomic particles & elements. This would make the earth grow in size, mass & gravity. This is how this proccess could take place without cosmic dust, impacts, or hydrogen/helium atoms accounting for new mass and matter.
Well, to be honest, seems plausible too me, the (whole) universe is expanding. the moon is getting farther away, larger Earth= greater gravity, to hold the moon., not to mention land masses seem to fit much better on smaller Earth. Hmmm. from reading some of the comments, there is not much (pizazz?) here to hold peoples interest lol, to bad for them, they will never know what was said, and therefor can't really say what they think of the theory? good science=check every angle, keep thinking.
The matter for the expansion can be accounted for by the huge amount of energy that enters the earth from the sun through the poles. The study of electro chemistry shows that many chemical reactions such as crystal growth can be done with the use of electrical currents. The simple fact is the Electric Universe model makes much more sense and fits the observations much better than the gravity only theory
Fascinating theory very poorly presented by this lecture. The speaker was not well rehearsed nor were the numerous visuals (power point) glitches representative of a quality worthy of such an extended duration. It would seem sadly, the entire effort resulted in diminishing & calling into question the entire hypothesis. Such an interesting & provocative challenge to plate tectonics should be better prepared & represented with a much higher degree of professionalism - i.e. rehearse & redo.
What the book say about ET's ? I read have the quran ? or was it Quran speaking of WormHoles, allah going to the other worlds etc.. :D Just asking since I live in the dishonest West..
Education systems are in the same way a chance for improvement as they are an obstacle for better solutions on given problems. But this resistance is a good filter for new theories.
WY - New theories need to be critically scrutinized, indeed, but I should think that a properly organized science should not impose barriers to _consideration_ of new ideas. Such barriers have in the past resulted in many serious losses to science, in my opinion. Here we have a theory which notable pioneers of plate tectonics have taken seriously enough to realize that the question has not been scientifically resolved - e.g. Bill Menard, Xaxier Pinchon - but 'consensus' renders it 'nonsense.'
@sathearn Sadly...this is an older theory than Plate Tectonics Theory. Its sad because no one knows that. That just shows how IGNORANT everyone is. Even those that agree with Expanding Earth Theory.
I find this Hypothesis/theory/Idea fascinating, but are there any american/USA scientific journals and documentation that support this. I have looked and perhaps in the wrong places, but would like to find publications in my nation, that are analytical and do not cling to one idea with brass knuckles as some of the less scientific videos (ie: Neal Adams) approach.
I frequently refer people to the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, an international forum for dissenting views in global tectonics, including discussion of EE. Its editorial board includes geoscientists from USA, Australia, Russia, Japan, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Its members have organized sessions at IGC and EGU conferences (though so far not successfully at AGU conferneces), and contributors also publish in scattered journals elsewhere.
@atrao101 lolololol..american's? why them? afterall, america has stolen almost every idea on the face of the planet........too make make or destroy. as for neal adams, all he did was popuolarise the theory, the didnt postualte it. it date back to the 50's.
also, name one thing in the universe that, from its birth, doesnt grow?
"Hark on?" Both EE and PT accept the ocean floor map data, in principle. One point Maxlow stresses, howver, is that in the case of PT, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data. In M.'s reconstructions, by contrast, since there is only one fit option at each stage, the paleomagnetic data can then act as an independent test of consistency. The resulting models can then be tested for consistency with a host of other data sets.
the reason earth is expanding 1 debre from space 2 the universe is expanding and that expantion is increaseing the vacuum of space one day even atoms wont be able to withstand vacumm and will be riped apart but dont worry its not going to happen till 2012 haha
One of the principle hallmarks of any valid hypothesis is that it evolves with the continual presentation and refinement of new data.
Expanding Earthers hark on about the ocean floor map - which completely supports plate tectonics - and they have very little else up their sleeves.
No Mechanism. No satisfactory rebuttal of the myriad of lines of evidence of a static Earth, not explanation of the receding Lunar orbit as measured accurately, daily by NASA.
"Hark on?" Both EE and PT accept the ocean floor map data, in principle. One point Maxlow stresses, however, is that in the case of PT, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data. In M.'s reconstructions, by contrast, since there is only one fit option at each stage, the paleomagnetic data can then act as an independent test of consistency. The resulting models can then be tested for consistency with a host of other data sets.
@atplato Your sentence doesn't actually make sense. This proves what you attempted to say, because of the fact users voted up your comment. Nice try though!
Surface angular increase as a sphere expands, causing hard surface material to push against each other which causes cracks and mountains to form at areas of high tension while the suface flattens out. Does this make sense? You can see it clearly if you draw a small sphere and a large sphere in 3DStudioMax... Think of a cake flattening out, it will crease in some points along its length...
No. The change in curvature is not relevant regarding to the thickness of the lithosphere.
The true origin of mountains is uplift, intrusion of plutons etc. cliff Ollier anf Colin Pain wrote a good book about it substantiated by many geological evidences. See a preview at tinyurldotcom/m2sbf5.
There are at least 10 professional journals devoted to geomorphology - the study of landforms. Ollier and Pain's book includes copious references to the literature to support the existence of erosional planation surfaces where present mountains stand - placing an upper bound on the subsequent uplift of the plateaus which then eroded to form mountians. Ollier has many journal articles, and his books have been published by academic publishers: MIT, Blackwell, Longman, Wiley, and Routledge.
Nucleus of atoms expanding/exploding and emit/radiate waves of energy that have a nature of electrons and particle. Electrons just move to next exploding nucleus of atoms and get this exploding faster and faster. Before that, electrons give some change of pressure for waves of energy that push themselfs out from nucleus of atoms and then born new electrons etc..
onesimpleprinciple com
Mountains born, when some strong energypulse come outside and give some pressure inside
If the earth expansion theory is right and it is.That means that scientists have been getting paid to bull sh@t us around. They have been deceiving us in to thinking that plate tectonics was real. that we had to figure this out on our own explains the lack of interest this fatcats have put on there own work but who was going to question them on it they are the scientists? I for one want money back for all the crappy job or lack of these fatcat have been getting paid to keep us in the dark.
I don't think it's deception at all. These things are difficult to grasp, and people spend their entire lives studying them. How would you feel if someone told you that your life's research had drawn the wrong conclusion? The only conspiracy is that people will defend to the death their yearning to be right. Admitting you could be wrong when not only you but thousands of other people have put their lives into something is not easy.
And yet I have heard it again and again that the best thing that can happen in science is to be proven wrong... for it is only then that knowledge and science can... ironically... GROW.
I hope this is a joke. Otherwise, you're spitting in the face of what you're supposed to represent- science and knowledge. That would make you a fraud, and scammer, and essentially a bottom feeder in a twisted way. Nothing I'd be proud of. Doubt you'd say that so loudly if you weren't behind the mask of screen name.
The Earth is expanding and the seas are recedng as a result. Seas are receding all around the world. We have to get used to the fact that sea level is a myth; it does not exist. The only thing we have yet to find out about sea level is that it is receding and has been doing so for a very long time as the earth expands. Once we deal with the sea level decline we will understand Earth expansion and science will make a major breakthrough. Sea level decline holds the secret of earth expansion. Hark
Satellites show sea level increasing by 3 mm/yr, which is to say an increase relative to the center of the earth, but tide gauges only show about 1.8 mm/yr (sea relative to land). If the measurements are valid, land and sea levels must both increasing relative to earth's center, i.e., earth is growing.
first, when blowing up a baloon you are adding gas to the ballon therefore increasing its mass. to increase mass you increse gravity.
second: plate tectonics and expanding earth do not prove each other wrong, they can both be true.
third: expanding earth would provide an explaination to how dino's got so big! with the current gravitational forces dino's could not exist, but if the gravity was about 20% less in early earth history then it would expalin how giaint diosaurs could have lived
Gravity doesnt necessarily increase if you increase Earth volume. Blowing up a balloon doesnt increase its mass. But, the centrifugal force on the surface of a spinning body, will increase or decrease depending on size (distance from center), think of spinning ice-skater.Centrifugal force can counter act gravitational force causing it to vary, if expansion/contraction is periodic then it could explain periods of gigantic growth.
This would in effect counter the downward gravitational attraction, thus affecting the size of biological organisms on earth. Add to that cycles of expansion and contraction and it might explain periods dominated by extra-large creatures.
I think you are right, a less dense early earth would have less gravity and would explain how dios were so big and now that the gravity has changed and is greater so the max size of animals is less.
The smaller earth does not necessarily equal less gravity, i.e., if you blow up a balloon it doesn't mean it will have more mass, hence stronger gravitation. But! The centrifugal force on the surface of a spinning body will be more if it is smaller because it will spin faster and less if it is larger, spinning slower, like a spinning ice skater.
There is a theory that the Earth once had rings like Saturn. "Science Frontiers (Issue #76, Jul-Aug 1991), " Made of ice, rocks and dust. They could have cascaded down on earth, in one event. Maybe following a large meteor? Breaking up the all land surface, releasing underground water, added to the ice, raining down. Would cause a world wide flood. The added mass, quickly, 100 yrs, caused the ground to slowly reappear. Gravity was increased. So life adapted to smaller size.
I always wondered if the solar radiation that hits the lens of the earth's atmosphere condenses into matter in the earth's core.. thus expanding the earth..
@ballinsnoop57 I have heard that the consensus opinion now is that they actually do have an extremely small mass, whereas the previous editions of the particle physics texts left the question open. I'm actually intrigued by the idea, originally proposed by Dewey Larson, that they actually are strictly massless, but that they can ocasionally interact with atoms in such a way that they can create additional increments of mass.
I always figured that the only way dinosaurs could have become so large would be due to less gravity. This would explain that smaller earth = less gravity.
That would not really account for it, since up until relatively modern times we have had megafauna and megaflora. Both of these existed right up until 10000-15000 years ago. These megafauna were up to 3 times the size of animals of similar structure today. Perhaps a better explanation would be a change in charge-balance (since gravity is best described as a 'weak electro-dipolar force') and therefore a decrease in gravity. Honestly, we are not as smart as we think we are ;P
@Krackonis The relative scale of the megafauna was much smaller than your estimate. Giant cats, Mammoths, deer and birds were only slightly larger than today's life. The relative scale of life has been reducing since the dinosaurs time - and that is exactly what we would expect to see on an expanding Earth that was increasing gravity over time.
you would also have to consider the atmosphere as well. Imagine an orange out growing it's skin. wouldn't the atmosphere of earth be subject to the same spreading if the planet grew ? There's another video on here somewhere that connects larger animals with a thicker atmosphere as well. :) If I find it I'll post a link.
@bovinicusdivinicus There is the theory that DARKMATTER makes up everything including sub atomic particals. Its simply made of particals which r 2 small for us 2 detect. They would still b affected by gravity tho. Particals of dark matter r so tiny that they can pass straight thru the earth into its center where gravity smashes it together 2 form sub atomic particals, atoms & elements. This would explain how the earth could expand in size, mass & gravity without additional imacts.
@bovinicusdivinicus A larger more massive planet has greater gravity. Simply plot the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus and the Earth against their gravity and you will see how gravity changes as a planet changes in size and mass.
Actually there is a theory that higher atmospheric pressure was a main reason why animals (dinosaurs and others) were larger in the past.. increased pressure means more atmospheric support.
Smaller earth (but not lighter) = Same amount of air over less surface area = more atmospheric pressure.
;)
there are alot of places where you can find this information.
@paytonmx smaller earth = less gravity? not exactly. a rock is a lot heavier than a big piece of foam. its mass not size, although it does seem likely that larger life forms will develop with less gravity
Even as a young kid in school, I never thought that plate tectonics / Pangea theory sounded quite right. Why would all the land be on one side of the Earth? That just doesn't make any sense.
Firesprink72 19 hours ago
it can be measured by satellites. But do you have a satellite? Do I have one? Do any of your friends or family have one? No. Organizations have them. What holds an organization together? Money. Money is power and you are cattle. Do you go out into the fields and talk to cows about what matters? No. You keep it to yourself and to those around you. Ever hear of a "secret"? Yeah, everyone keeps secrets. Why so easily dismiss the idea that people with money keep secrets too?
SeaBreeze90 1 week ago
The earth grew from a ball of dust, but it doesn't grow anymore - Official science expert guru.
DiggityMcD 2 weeks ago
Is it really expanding or is it just collecting more space dust/metorites/commets like it has always... and was made from
Typho0n86 1 month ago
There is no way continents 'slide' around the ocean floor, like in the pangea world. Continents are bedrock.
kaderoder 1 month ago
"Expansionist scientists have repeatedly raised the issue of fictitious contractions"
Well, there's a surprise.
ScienceWars 1 month ago
@ScienceWars There's a philosophical principle here: that people are entitled to know the sort of issues that have been raised. Understanding the actual reasoning may, however, be detrimental if one's goal is simply to promulgate insinuations about motives, in which case it is better to make it appear that scientists proposing expansion have no rational grounds whatever to maintain that position in the face of seemingly contrary geodetic evidence.
sathearn 3 weeks ago
"back to the beginning of earth history, four thousand - six hundred million years ago".........LMAO
KJVWordofGod 2 months ago
@KJVWordofGod 4600 million = 4.6 billion
You do realize that, right?
MsMelua 1 month ago
The methods for measuring our planet are very precise and can detect changes in a fraction of a millimeter, like when measuring the movement of continental plates. In regards to these facts, if the size of the Earth really IS expanding from inside, how come this cannot be observed or measured by satellites or in any other way?
VoxSweden 3 months ago 2
@VoxSweden Expansionist scientists have repeatedly raised the issue of fictitious contractions (see e.g. Koziar's Oct 5 presentation here: ftp://ftp. ingv. it/pro/web_ingv/37th%20Course/pdf%20presentations/
For example, the same data which seems to show shortening of the Europe-Japan distance by ~25 mm/yr (despite contrary geological evidence), could indicate instead a radial expansion of ~16 mm/yr -- regardless of supposed "precision."
sathearn 2 months ago
@VoxSweden The same reason that 300 years ago the people in the know didn't tell the masses that they knew for a fact that the earth really was round.....
GanjaStuPipesUp 2 weeks ago
@GanjaStuPipesUp Because... They actually did tell people and it was commonly known that the earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks? Sorry I don't get what you are going on about. Also the earth has been measured by NASA and they revealed that the earth is growing by the width of a human hair every year (not enough to support the expanding earth hypothesis).
rhubis 5 days ago
The Earth absorbs 25k tons of space dust every year and Google Earth is showing every day the planet gets hit with many large bolides from space (they make a huge splash in the oceans). Pettersson's original estimate of 15 million tonnes of debris every year is appearing more likely all the time.
Since most of the Earth's weight is bacteria there is a slow exponential growth of the mass of the planet. Most of those bacteria are methane producing extremophiles. That methane is the key.
SuperZekethefreak 4 months ago
the earth supposed to have grown as a small mass of dust circling around the sun & accumulating mass for billions of years. if It's still circling & has gravity why has it stopped accumulating mass & increasing its size? If it suddenly stopped accumulating mass at which stage did it happen & why?
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig No, it did not stop, it started slowly, then increased exponentially, and probably still is. You can find a map and a table of this here: continuitystudios . net /growth
updated map here: continuitystudios . net /advanced
TREMILBERG 4 months ago
@TREMILBERG 3 months later thanks.
nayanmalig 1 week ago
It makes sense that continents can fit together; but is the Earth is expanding, where the additional matter is coming from? is that matter being formed by an event that is similar to the "big bang" ?. another point is the oceans waters, is it coming in from outer space? Third point is time needed for this Earth expansion; I am told of a figure of 180 Millions years, which seems to me to be very short.
albertsneijMD 5 months ago
@albertsneijMD actually, the continents don't fit together. Don't waste your time on this theory, the scientific consensus does not agree with this. Potholer54 elequently debunked this /watch?v=epwg6Od49e8
Typhoonbladefist 4 months ago
@Typhoonbladefist At least the Geological Map of the World, which provides the basic data upon which Maxlow has built his models, is part of the scientific consensus, and the other global data sets he uses to test the models are perfectly mainstream. Potholer54's video doesn't actually mention _any_ of Maxlow's evidence, so can hardly be said to debunk it. It's not the continents that are claimed to fit, but the 'sutures' in the oceans as the isochrons are sequentially retracted back in time.
sathearn 4 months ago
This is ridiculous. People like this man are viewed as retards by the scientific community. You only have to go to Wikipedia and search for the Earth Expansion Theory to understand why. The Earth Expansion hypothesis is ridiculous and completely non-scientific. No evidence exists to support it. This man clearly does not understand plate tectonics, for if he did, he would not showcase such stupidity.
xmaneater 5 months ago 2
@xmaneater Again, as in my comment regarding Potholer54's treatment of the subject, the Wikipedia article doesn't actually mention any of the main grounds which have led some geoscientists to propose expansion (or any of the criticisms which those same scientists have made of the alleged refutations - paleomagnetic, space geodetic, etc.) This is a travesty of the Wikipedia policy of impartiality, and has misled many. For a corrective overview, see e.g.: mediafire. com/?7126bae6c0qmjpa
sathearn 3 months ago
I remember looking at the old earth globe back in school 40 or so years ago and thinking how all the continents together nicely on a smaller planet. To be quite honest i do not recall any teacher totally comfortable with current Pangea break-up theory. Thank you for this important educational video upload.
coldfusion12 6 months ago
Here is a new paper (2011) that examined if the Earth is expanding...
"The solid Earth is not expanding within the measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm/yr"
Wu, X., X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi, B. L. A. Vermeersen, R. S. Gross, and I. Fukumori (2011), Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L13304, doi:10.1029/2011GL047450.
Diamonddavej 6 months ago
@Diamonddavej Have you read the full paper in detail instead of just the summary? Surely what James Maxlow said in his book is that all these papers follow the original Robaudo and Harrison recommendation that the vertical motion be 'restricted to zero because (they considered that) this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18mm/year'. The summary states that expansion is zero but within the main body of the paper you will find that some raw data is removed.
Dinoxorg 6 months ago 5
"The solid Earth is not expanding within the measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm/yr."
"Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1σ measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1."
Wu, X., et al. 2011. Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion.
Diamonddavej 6 months ago
I feel embarrassed that I'm in the same city as these guys.
Xinfinitude 7 months ago
Dont forget that over 100 tones of galactic material (dust) is deposited on the Earth every day too.
kaderoder 8 months ago
@kaderoder And also the present rate of cosmic bombardment is only very small in comparison to the amount over geological time. Today we have cosmic showers - over geological time we have cosmic storms.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
this theory is crazy, and doesn't work with known laws of physics :) but we live in spiritual world in first place, and laws of physics don't explain 'law of attraction' (spiritual concept) as well. I read interesting book written by walter russel, who presents alternative physics, which combines well with growing earth theory. it's weird as well, but mainstream physics which doesn't give explaination to basic things like magnetism, gravity, mass and even light (although they think they are).
YogiFromEU 9 months ago
@YogiFromEU People always need rationalizations for how things work.
The reality is, We still hadn't had enough time to research everything due to restraints like religion having prevented us from scientific advancement hundreds of years ago.
We need time and with time we will be able to comprehend even gravity. However the need for people to know everything in the universe won't accept this and they will come up with baseless and stupid theories that rationalize what they see without research.
ernis1100 7 months ago
Great presentation. I appreciate the fact that the information was delivered in a very straight forward manner without all the sarcasm and insulting tone. It will be a difficult thing to get geologists and physicists to accept these facts. But, they will eventually be forced to accept it. There is not reason for all the sort of attitudes and defensiveness that has surrounded this subject thus far....from either side.
Robin081564 10 months ago 2
@Robin081564
Unfortunately there is not enough time left for them to come to this conclusion.
Study post glacier rebound .. know it ... don't forget it and don't run out of oil.
Not only she expanding, she is being born anew.
love you guys .. do not lie, only speak truth for the time is short and deceivers will be cut off.
Those who have cause that rapidness of post glacier rebound through nuclear fallout, mining, etc ... your time is short, you better repent and stop deceiving the people
TheGrowingAwareness 10 months ago
Damn scientists think they're so smart... How do they explain THIS away?
MacLaurin83 10 months ago
Why do none of the commentors on this video have science knowledge past from what they learned in middle school?
camoflux 10 months ago
A great alternative theory. Makes one think rather than just accept.
LisJack52 10 months ago
I think the earth just expanded..
the subduction zones from north end to south end along the coast from New Zealand to Fiji, to japan and on up to Russia experienced a seemingly high number of seismic activity above 5.0 ...additionally a number of volcanoes had notable systemics. I have been watching the charts on line for some months and never seen such solid activity from one end of the planet to another within such narrow margins.
godnmyhands 11 months ago
Thanks for your help in providing an alternative view & making us think !
TheSalisburyForum 1 year ago
The pangea theory "makes sense", because we've all seen it.... on a flat piece of paper. But put in on an actual sphere, and you will see how little sense it makes. All the land is supposed to be on one side of the earth? And the other just water.?
fergus247 1 year ago
the big bang? id say it is a firework after going of and we are so small in a bigger universe of universes that time slows down for us cause we are so small but in reality it is going fast and when the fire work stops we stop everything stops sure they say the universe is expanding your sayin the world is expanding just something i though of when i was stoned after smoking a lot of weed ha and the firework can be anything could be someone hitting a hammer and making a spark? you never know
fitzy545 1 year ago
of cause growing...gravitation works only inwards, so during 1000 mln years it can expand greatly, not only dust, but and comets, meteors, asteroids, meteorites and even sun wind and as earth got more mass, the hotter she become which added some more 5% in diameter
discouniverse 1 year ago
Mabe constantly hit by photons from the sun makes things grow as the energy turns to matter. Plants and the like seem to manage O.K
Oskadella69 1 year ago
im most definitely not trying to be a troll, just wondering, but... where does the water come from in the expanding earth theory? was it from plant life creating the atmosphere binding many hydrogen and oxygen molecules? (once again, I'm not a troll, im just a kid who'se curious)
superchickenbob 1 year ago
@superchickenbob
Good questions, chickenbob. I theorise that water is connected to life, and the more life we have, the more water we get. It's only half-baked at the moment, but I've got a feeling the sun, cosmic rays, life and consciousness makes water grow and generate.
PEACE
chrispyt77 1 year ago
@eciceron
The sun is growing so the distance between earth and the sun remains same because earth is growing too and at the same time moving away from the sun. They are expanding from the center of the universe and if you didnt figure it out yet our sun IS the center of the universe. Idiots that measure zulu time dont know this fact, their equipment however is showing that earth with each new year takes longer and longer to travel around the sun, they simply adjust the clocks on new year with
sexyneu 1 year ago
I don't get it. Satellite data has shown that the earth literally hasn't expanded at all since measurement started. Isn't that the end of this hypothesis?
Dissapointment4 1 year ago
@Dissapointment4 link to data?
omgwowface 1 year ago
@Dissapointment4 @Diamonddavej James Maxlow said in his book that the papers on satellite data follow the original Robaudo and Harrison recommendation that the vertical motion be 'restricted to zero because (they considered that) this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18mm/year'. Only the summaries state that expansion is zero - within the main body of the paper you will find that raw data has been removed.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
we do know that space itself is expanding...and not only expanding...its expansion is accellerating...would that mean that all mass is expanding as well but because space is also expanding it seems as though distances between two points remains constant...but in actuality space and mass actualy are expanding at the same rate therefor creating the illusion that distances are the same...just a thought
Metamorphosis33 1 year ago 2
@Metamorphosis33 I agree to your point..if the earth did not expand equally then the earth would get smaller and smaller in size reference to space and should disapear alltogether into infininity eventually as space would get incredibly or infinately large. and to me this can explain gravity where is its the expanding earth pushing upwards acelerating in all directions like einsteins elevator metafor I had this thought for many years.
JoeyMars1 1 year ago
@JoeyMars1 expanding earth causing gravity like that just doesn't work
AceBean27 11 months ago
a simple question...does this violate the law of conservation of energy?
Metamorphosis33 1 year ago
Awesome I remember when this video first came out the neal adams videoand everyone was name calling it, lol, when the old theory crashes it's going be a turning point, people will start to question a lot more scientific dogma.
Jammieg001 1 year ago
its very unlike the earth was growing but you would need to show proof of whats happening under the water and under the core not just fit earth like a puzzle and assume its growing base on what your eyes can see ,
plus how our earth can fit 2day like a puzzle was 100% not the same type of puzzle 500millions years ago
also you must keep in mind
erosion
weathering
natural disasters
and at one point earth never did have water
moneyjr1122 1 year ago
What is truly surprising is that people are willing to believe this nonsense. Fancy computer graphics do not make a fact, though many seem to believe it to be so.
This hypothesis was prominent when it was discovered that continents drift, but it was discarded over 50 years ago when plate tectonics was verified beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Were he a real scientist he would try to make the hypothesis fit the facts, and not the other way around.
Matrixfart 1 year ago
@Matrixfart No, graphics are not proof, they are merely demonstrating the theory. Maxlow is not an artist and his graphics do not communicate the idea as well as Adams' graphics. Adams does explain his methodology in constructing his graphics. Maxlow explained in his presentation that there are several data sets to support his theory. Hence they both give means for which to replicate and analyze their process. Where is the PT animation which incorporates and explains the oceanic crust geometry?
DodecaDude 1 year ago
@Matrixfart The "facts" you are referring to are based on information that had no way of being proven or observed with the technology we had 50 years ago. This theory is throwing a lot of these accepted "facts" out the window and fitting into the relatively new acquired data.
ballinsnoop57 9 months ago
No it's not.
v=epwg6Od49e8
codediporpal 1 year ago
My face is sore from all the face palms. Forget that NO mechanism actually explains this supposed process in these vids, but what about distances between know points on the planet? We are not moving away from ever other point. The circumference is not growing, else travel times would be altering, let alone the significant issue of satellites and other orbits - including GPS. This gut doesn't know what the Sun is made of or how it works!
SierraBravoOneNiner 1 year ago 2
@SierraBravoOneNiner Try a HeadDesk every once in awhile, it helps you stop doing facepalms because you will kill enough brain cells to actually believe this stuff.
Shyhalu 1 year ago
Want some entertainment? Look into the most recent Nexus Conference in 2010 and even Nexus magazine. One topic was "The Apollo Moon Landings - Fact or Fiction?" LMAO! All of the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience in one place. WOW!
Just shows that you can have a degree and be a lunatic. I know a few. A fellow Ph.D. Mathematician at Iowa State who advocated that we "blow up the Moon" to save the Earth.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Okay, that sparked my curiosity. Just how exactly did this guy think that blowing up the moon would save the earth?
FireDragons42 1 year ago
Many people seem to want to equate growing earth with an increase in mass. I see no reason to suspect that at all. Density is a very easy concept to grasp.
The Sun is one day destined to become a Red Giant, but no one suggests that its going to become more massive. Volume = Mass / Density. The kinetic theory of gases, the activity and increase in average temperature of the sun over billions of years. The state of the primordial earth.
orrerystar 1 year ago
The first 37 seconds of this video were a meaningless waste of time.
arcanacelestia 1 year ago
This whole "the earth is expanding" theory is illogical... I haven't taken any science above highschool, but I at least share the logic of those whom know that the earth did NOT grow... what a bunch of stupid bullshit...
adrumzzify 1 year ago
Yes, the Earth is expanding, but only due to meteorite and asteroid fall and debris from outer space which fall onto the Earth gravitational pull. This growth can be measured by few kilograms of matter falling on the Earth a year.
parintelebaiazid 1 year ago 2
@parintelebaiazid Why do you assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment has always been the same as today? Over geological time there could easily have been cosmic storms.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
I have the answer for the missing volume of ocean water.
Rozettados25 1 year ago
If the Earth grew, did the mass stay constant???
If not wouldn't Earth from its orbit around the sun dive into the sun long time ago, else because of higher mass it must either revolve faster around the sun or take a farther orbit around the sun to stay in gravitational equilibrium with respect to the sun, farther from sun it would also change the climate, I am just wondering.
eCicerone 1 year ago
@eCicerone the weight of the earth stays the same. as the mantel is 4 times as dense as the crust due to gravity and heat. when it comes to the surface it expands. so it is imposible that a light crust can subduct under a plate in to a mantel over 4 times as dense.so you would get an increase in size but weighs the same
lamboclutch 1 year ago
this is 2 years old, are people denying this? has it been proven incorrect? I WANT TO KNOW
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience Why would you want proof of whether it is true or not? Use your logic! How would earth grow about half of its initial size? It would require mass from the outside of our plants surface. The mass of earth is not increasing thus it cant be growing. In fact earth should rather be shrinking due to another obvious reason: were sending various satellites into space. Those satellites were build out of our earthly materials. Need i say more? This is conspiracy science. Nothing more.
LiezAllLiez 1 year ago
@LiezAllLiez LOL ! my thoughts exactly !
michaeldublg 1 year ago
@LiezAllLiez How was the Earth created in the first place? Convential theory states that the Earth grew by cosmic bombardment about 4000 million years ago and then stopped completely. All the expanding Earth theory is saying is that the Earth grew over the last 4000 million years.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
I would believe the earths expands AND CONTRACTS but it probabbly on a couple centimeters.
tekNiqueAU 1 year ago
That because dust in the universe ( ~4 ton/day).
phgnphuocphung 1 year ago
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
mescalito00 1 year ago
@mescalito00 a what????
jfeuiebf 1 year ago
If the earth is truly expanding, why cover it up? What's the significance of keeping the info hidden?
Skull666Bones 1 year ago
@Skull666Bones because it's going to blow soon
jfeuiebf 1 year ago
@Skull666Bones Because they would have to rewrite a whole lot of science, discredit older scientists who spent their entire lives proving this, and a bunch of other nonsense reasons. They would rather just be in denial and agree with the mainstream science than be outcasts.
ballinsnoop57 9 months ago
Makes sence all the land was cover kilometers of water, unless the water turned up by magic!
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
1:00 starts
wc02 1 year ago
...expanding one epoch , contrating the next, the important thing is to learn the how & whys , as once a problem is described , a solution becomes easier to resolve.
~it is the survival thing to do !
docatomics 1 year ago
Wouldn't the biggest evidence of an expanding earth be evidence of expansion?
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
@mrlungsballs If interlocking continental plates and the age of the sea floor isn't good enough evidence, i don't know what it is.
mininow 1 year ago
@mrlungsballs but, if all particles expend, then so does form of measurement, hence, you wouldnt be able to prove it
101jon101 1 year ago
The earth isnt expanding.
SuperSnorlaxForums 1 year ago
@SuperSnorlaxForums
yes it is.
yourmajezty 1 year ago
@yourmajezty no it isnt. If anything it would be contracting, just as Mercury has.
Kable31415 1 year ago
OK, how do we have deep oil deposits under our seas if they are new crust? Unless you feel that oil is abiotic or something?
waysidemm 1 year ago
@waysidemm - Would be nice if a petroleum geologist would respond to your question. Most of the offshore oil deposits are on continental shelf, which is not proposed to be new. I'm not sure what problems the existence of _deep_ water oil may present for theories of oil origins, but such oil (1) seems confined to small slivers of ocean, most of which are still on the slopes of continental shelves and (2) is still associated with sedimentary rock, as in current theory (w/w JM seemingly agrees).
sathearn 1 year ago
@waysidemm while i am on your side about this, oil doesnt form on/in oceanic crust. it only forms on continental crust so unfortunately their theory can explin oil.
metfan89 1 year ago
"People researching such things, " lol
CptWillard2002 1 year ago
It is true that the amount of gravity is proportional to mass, however the attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. Black holes are known to be collapsed stars, yet the stars do not gain mass or gravity as they collapse. Smaller earth would yield greater gravitational effects due to the decrees in distance between the center of the earth and the bodies inhabiting its surface.
phylthie 1 year ago
@phylthie not if the earth grew due to matter being created in its center. What u say only applies if the earth is simply expanding without gaining any new mass.
userfsdw 1 year ago
This explains how the fishies got to the land and how we have alot of land animals this day.. Earth was one big sea before, and when its expanding the water levels goes down. Then the landmass sticks out of the water and those little fishies got stuck on land, and then grew some legs according to Darwin's Theory. :)
FaggggR 1 year ago
Dark matter is made of particles small enough 2 pass straight thru the earth & b drawn 2 its center of gravity. Dark matter would then b crushed into sub atomic particles & elements. This would make the earth grow in size, mass & gravity. This is how this proccess could take place without cosmic dust, impacts, or hydrogen/helium atoms accounting for new mass and matter.
userfsdw 1 year ago
less gravity, and a higher consentration of oxygen paytonmx . the dino's nostrils were only as big as a horse's nostrils.
kenmacush 1 year ago
Well, to be honest, seems plausible too me, the (whole) universe is expanding. the moon is getting farther away, larger Earth= greater gravity, to hold the moon., not to mention land masses seem to fit much better on smaller Earth. Hmmm. from reading some of the comments, there is not much (pizazz?) here to hold peoples interest lol, to bad for them, they will never know what was said, and therefor can't really say what they think of the theory? good science=check every angle, keep thinking.
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 year ago 4
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 You obviously don't know anything about science.
ZOPPIFY 11 months ago
one should remember great scientist today and past were once ignored and neglected,so these people who are ignored will be heard in the future...
livordie4eelam 1 year ago
The matter for the expansion can be accounted for by the huge amount of energy that enters the earth from the sun through the poles. The study of electro chemistry shows that many chemical reactions such as crystal growth can be done with the use of electrical currents. The simple fact is the Electric Universe model makes much more sense and fits the observations much better than the gravity only theory
geomatrix11 1 year ago
Fascinating theory very poorly presented by this lecture. The speaker was not well rehearsed nor were the numerous visuals (power point) glitches representative of a quality worthy of such an extended duration. It would seem sadly, the entire effort resulted in diminishing & calling into question the entire hypothesis. Such an interesting & provocative challenge to plate tectonics should be better prepared & represented with a much higher degree of professionalism - i.e. rehearse & redo.
WunderMaus 1 year ago
Holly Quran told 1400 years ago that earth is expanding. So for me it is not surprise
mrmsdar 2 years ago
What the book say about ET's ? I read have the quran ? or was it Quran speaking of WormHoles, allah going to the other worlds etc.. :D Just asking since I live in the dishonest West..
FromDimmuLand 1 year ago
Education systems are in the same way a chance for improvement as they are an obstacle for better solutions on given problems. But this resistance is a good filter for new theories.
WolYou 2 years ago
WY - New theories need to be critically scrutinized, indeed, but I should think that a properly organized science should not impose barriers to _consideration_ of new ideas. Such barriers have in the past resulted in many serious losses to science, in my opinion. Here we have a theory which notable pioneers of plate tectonics have taken seriously enough to realize that the question has not been scientifically resolved - e.g. Bill Menard, Xaxier Pinchon - but 'consensus' renders it 'nonsense.'
sathearn 2 years ago 11
@sathearn Very well said.
TheShnuz 2 years ago
Because the "consensus" has a vested interest in the status quo
3rdKrypton 1 year ago
@sathearn Sadly...this is an older theory than Plate Tectonics Theory. Its sad because no one knows that. That just shows how IGNORANT everyone is. Even those that agree with Expanding Earth Theory.
yinyangbalance 10 months ago
I find this Hypothesis/theory/Idea fascinating, but are there any american/USA scientific journals and documentation that support this. I have looked and perhaps in the wrong places, but would like to find publications in my nation, that are analytical and do not cling to one idea with brass knuckles as some of the less scientific videos (ie: Neal Adams) approach.
atrao101 2 years ago 7
I frequently refer people to the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, an international forum for dissenting views in global tectonics, including discussion of EE. Its editorial board includes geoscientists from USA, Australia, Russia, Japan, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Its members have organized sessions at IGC and EGU conferences (though so far not successfully at AGU conferneces), and contributors also publish in scattered journals elsewhere.
sathearn 2 years ago
@atrao101 lolololol..american's? why them? afterall, america has stolen almost every idea on the face of the planet........too make make or destroy. as for neal adams, all he did was popuolarise the theory, the didnt postualte it. it date back to the 50's.
also, name one thing in the universe that, from its birth, doesnt grow?
johnnytheprick 7 months ago
Well, at least they are honest and call it "The Expanding Earth Hypothesis". It's certainly not a theory.
NoAntecessor 2 years ago
@NoAntecessor 8:00 He calls its earth expansion theory.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
@NoAntecessor in the second video that is.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
"Hark on?" Both EE and PT accept the ocean floor map data, in principle. One point Maxlow stresses, howver, is that in the case of PT, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data. In M.'s reconstructions, by contrast, since there is only one fit option at each stage, the paleomagnetic data can then act as an independent test of consistency. The resulting models can then be tested for consistency with a host of other data sets.
sathearn 2 years ago
Check out Neal Adam's animations of this theory in action. It's amazing and you can see the logical progression. A must see.
DTK5689 2 years ago
@DTK5689 Finally someone else who can understand the obvious truth. Thank you.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
the reason earth is expanding 1 debre from space 2 the universe is expanding and that expantion is increaseing the vacuum of space one day even atoms wont be able to withstand vacumm and will be riped apart but dont worry its not going to happen till 2012 haha
dinahthecatrulez 2 years ago
One of the principle hallmarks of any valid hypothesis is that it evolves with the continual presentation and refinement of new data.
Expanding Earthers hark on about the ocean floor map - which completely supports plate tectonics - and they have very little else up their sleeves.
No Mechanism. No satisfactory rebuttal of the myriad of lines of evidence of a static Earth, not explanation of the receding Lunar orbit as measured accurately, daily by NASA.
This hypothesis died in the 60s.
phdhbtdsmmm 2 years ago
"Hark on?" Both EE and PT accept the ocean floor map data, in principle. One point Maxlow stresses, however, is that in the case of PT, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data. In M.'s reconstructions, by contrast, since there is only one fit option at each stage, the paleomagnetic data can then act as an independent test of consistency. The resulting models can then be tested for consistency with a host of other data sets.
sathearn 2 years ago
fascinating
gjwaters 2 years ago
erm if its expanding where the matter for the expansion coming from???? a white hole in the center of the earth what???
Gavite 2 years ago
No. It's pumping energy from its close environment.
floriannachon 2 years ago
I am amazed at both the genious and stupidity I see in these youtube comments.
atplato 2 years ago 16
@atplato Your sentence doesn't actually make sense. This proves what you attempted to say, because of the fact users voted up your comment. Nice try though!
LolToalNoobs 1 year ago
Subduction? Im not sure, could it be this?
Surface angular increase as a sphere expands, causing hard surface material to push against each other which causes cracks and mountains to form at areas of high tension while the suface flattens out. Does this make sense? You can see it clearly if you draw a small sphere and a large sphere in 3DStudioMax... Think of a cake flattening out, it will crease in some points along its length...
speedrecovery 2 years ago
No. The change in curvature is not relevant regarding to the thickness of the lithosphere.
The true origin of mountains is uplift, intrusion of plutons etc. cliff Ollier anf Colin Pain wrote a good book about it substantiated by many geological evidences. See a preview at tinyurldotcom/m2sbf5.
floriannachon 2 years ago
What Ollier and Pain wrote is not a book about geology. It's a book about geomorphology.
Geology is a real thing. Geomorphology is not. Ollier and Pain could never get their findings past a peer review.
FreePlay 2 years ago
Just like how the Wright brothers couldn't get their heavier than air flight past peer review?
faro0485 2 years ago
There are at least 10 professional journals devoted to geomorphology - the study of landforms. Ollier and Pain's book includes copious references to the literature to support the existence of erosional planation surfaces where present mountains stand - placing an upper bound on the subsequent uplift of the plateaus which then eroded to form mountians. Ollier has many journal articles, and his books have been published by academic publishers: MIT, Blackwell, Longman, Wiley, and Routledge.
sathearn 2 years ago
Also atoms expanding!
Nucleus of atoms expanding/exploding and emit/radiate waves of energy that have a nature of electrons and particle. Electrons just move to next exploding nucleus of atoms and get this exploding faster and faster. Before that, electrons give some change of pressure for waves of energy that push themselfs out from nucleus of atoms and then born new electrons etc..
onesimpleprinciple com
Mountains born, when some strong energypulse come outside and give some pressure inside
Etimespace 2 years ago
If the earth expansion theory is right and it is.That means that scientists have been getting paid to bull sh@t us around. They have been deceiving us in to thinking that plate tectonics was real. that we had to figure this out on our own explains the lack of interest this fatcats have put on there own work but who was going to question them on it they are the scientists? I for one want money back for all the crappy job or lack of these fatcat have been getting paid to keep us in the dark.
davidgran1967 2 years ago
Geophysicists made the common mistake to believe in their model more than in the factual data. They don't deceive nobody but themselves.
floriannachon 2 years ago
I don't think it's deception at all. These things are difficult to grasp, and people spend their entire lives studying them. How would you feel if someone told you that your life's research had drawn the wrong conclusion? The only conspiracy is that people will defend to the death their yearning to be right. Admitting you could be wrong when not only you but thousands of other people have put their lives into something is not easy.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago 35
@TatsujinSan
And yet I have heard it again and again that the best thing that can happen in science is to be proven wrong... for it is only then that knowledge and science can... ironically... GROW.
batfly 1 year ago
@TatsujinSan You are wrong.
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kable3141 2 years ago
I hope this is a joke. Otherwise, you're spitting in the face of what you're supposed to represent- science and knowledge. That would make you a fraud, and scammer, and essentially a bottom feeder in a twisted way. Nothing I'd be proud of. Doubt you'd say that so loudly if you weren't behind the mask of screen name.
mint83 2 years ago
Many scientific revelations have spit in the face of the status quo and the politicized science of the time.
DTK5689 2 years ago
The Earth is expanding and the seas are recedng as a result. Seas are receding all around the world. We have to get used to the fact that sea level is a myth; it does not exist. The only thing we have yet to find out about sea level is that it is receding and has been doing so for a very long time as the earth expands. Once we deal with the sea level decline we will understand Earth expansion and science will make a major breakthrough. Sea level decline holds the secret of earth expansion. Hark
fraustrated 2 years ago
Satellites show sea level increasing by 3 mm/yr, which is to say an increase relative to the center of the earth, but tide gauges only show about 1.8 mm/yr (sea relative to land). If the measurements are valid, land and sea levels must both increasing relative to earth's center, i.e., earth is growing.
trusty72 2 years ago 6
first, when blowing up a baloon you are adding gas to the ballon therefore increasing its mass. to increase mass you increse gravity.
second: plate tectonics and expanding earth do not prove each other wrong, they can both be true.
third: expanding earth would provide an explaination to how dino's got so big! with the current gravitational forces dino's could not exist, but if the gravity was about 20% less in early earth history then it would expalin how giaint diosaurs could have lived
Suburbpat 2 years ago
1-Gravity doesnt necessarily increase if you increase Earth volume. Blowing up a balloon doesnt increase its mass.
exsoteric 2 years ago
addition of gas does increase its overall mass, are you saying that the gas in the ballon as you blow it up will not contribute to its mass?
Suburbpat 2 years ago
if i fill it with water it does increase its mass
davidgran1967 2 years ago
where would you get the water from?
hornetobiker 2 years ago
Gravity doesnt necessarily increase if you increase Earth volume. Blowing up a balloon doesnt increase its mass. But, the centrifugal force on the surface of a spinning body, will increase or decrease depending on size (distance from center), think of spinning ice-skater.Centrifugal force can counter act gravitational force causing it to vary, if expansion/contraction is periodic then it could explain periods of gigantic growth.
exsoteric 2 years ago
This would in effect counter the downward gravitational attraction, thus affecting the size of biological organisms on earth. Add to that cycles of expansion and contraction and it might explain periods dominated by extra-large creatures.
exsoteric 2 years ago
I think you are right, a less dense early earth would have less gravity and would explain how dios were so big and now that the gravity has changed and is greater so the max size of animals is less.
Suburbpat 2 years ago
If the earth was that much smaller we would be too far from the sun and would not have eanough heat to support life.
ac27272727 2 years ago
nonsence!
How big is Mercury? Where is it?
Duh?
atplato 2 years ago
Really? The sun is only 8.3 light minutes away... If the Earth had half the radius, that wouldn't even account for a second.
Smyrk420 2 years ago
The smaller earth does not necessarily equal less gravity, i.e., if you blow up a balloon it doesn't mean it will have more mass, hence stronger gravitation. But! The centrifugal force on the surface of a spinning body will be more if it is smaller because it will spin faster and less if it is larger, spinning slower, like a spinning ice skater.
exsoteric 2 years ago
There is a theory that the Earth once had rings like Saturn. "Science Frontiers (Issue #76, Jul-Aug 1991), " Made of ice, rocks and dust. They could have cascaded down on earth, in one event. Maybe following a large meteor? Breaking up the all land surface, releasing underground water, added to the ice, raining down. Would cause a world wide flood. The added mass, quickly, 100 yrs, caused the ground to slowly reappear. Gravity was increased. So life adapted to smaller size.
Howie47 2 years ago
I always wonder why these guys with strange ideas all have either long hair, or a long beard, or both.
lrvives 2 years ago
I always wondered if the solar radiation that hits the lens of the earth's atmosphere condenses into matter in the earth's core.. thus expanding the earth..
wwood14 2 years ago
@wwood14 "I always wondered if the solar radiation that hits the lens of the earth's atmosphere condenses into matter in the earth's core."
You need wonder no more. Photons from the sun have no mass and can't increase the earth's mass.
terrymorse 11 months ago
@terrymorse It is possible that a portion of the neutrinos coming from the sun actually do have mass.
ballinsnoop57 9 months ago
@ballinsnoop57 I have heard that the consensus opinion now is that they actually do have an extremely small mass, whereas the previous editions of the particle physics texts left the question open. I'm actually intrigued by the idea, originally proposed by Dewey Larson, that they actually are strictly massless, but that they can ocasionally interact with atoms in such a way that they can create additional increments of mass.
sathearn 7 months ago
I always figured that the only way dinosaurs could have become so large would be due to less gravity. This would explain that smaller earth = less gravity.
paytonmx 2 years ago 10
That would not really account for it, since up until relatively modern times we have had megafauna and megaflora. Both of these existed right up until 10000-15000 years ago. These megafauna were up to 3 times the size of animals of similar structure today. Perhaps a better explanation would be a change in charge-balance (since gravity is best described as a 'weak electro-dipolar force') and therefore a decrease in gravity. Honestly, we are not as smart as we think we are ;P
Krackonis 2 years ago
@Krackonis The relative scale of the megafauna was much smaller than your estimate. Giant cats, Mammoths, deer and birds were only slightly larger than today's life. The relative scale of life has been reducing since the dinosaurs time - and that is exactly what we would expect to see on an expanding Earth that was increasing gravity over time.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
you would also have to consider the atmosphere as well. Imagine an orange out growing it's skin. wouldn't the atmosphere of earth be subject to the same spreading if the planet grew ? There's another video on here somewhere that connects larger animals with a thicker atmosphere as well. :) If I find it I'll post a link.
wingnut4427 2 years ago
@paytonmx gravity stems from mass not size
JeromeChaos 1 year ago
paytonmx
Actually.. it is the amount (and the density) of matter that dictates the amount of gravity an object "creates".
Even if the Earth is expanding, it's gravity effect should remain the same.
The cause of the expansion is not likely to be addition of material to the Earth, as not enough has been "imported" from outside the Earth
IE. Galactic (or cosmic) dust, asteroids/meteoroids and / or individual hydrogen molecules.swept up" by Earth during transit.
bovinicusdivinicus 1 year ago
@bovinicusdivinicus There is the theory that DARKMATTER makes up everything including sub atomic particals. Its simply made of particals which r 2 small for us 2 detect. They would still b affected by gravity tho. Particals of dark matter r so tiny that they can pass straight thru the earth into its center where gravity smashes it together 2 form sub atomic particals, atoms & elements. This would explain how the earth could expand in size, mass & gravity without additional imacts.
userfsdw 1 year ago
@bovinicusdivinicus A larger more massive planet has greater gravity. Simply plot the gravity of the Moon, Mars, Venus and the Earth against their gravity and you will see how gravity changes as a planet changes in size and mass.
Dinoxorg 5 months ago
@paytonmx
Actually there is a theory that higher atmospheric pressure was a main reason why animals (dinosaurs and others) were larger in the past.. increased pressure means more atmospheric support.
Smaller earth (but not lighter) = Same amount of air over less surface area = more atmospheric pressure.
;)
there are alot of places where you can find this information.
bovinicusdivinicus 1 year ago
@paytonmx smaller earth = less gravity? not exactly. a rock is a lot heavier than a big piece of foam. its mass not size, although it does seem likely that larger life forms will develop with less gravity
5oren 1 year ago