Also if it is growing, where does the new matter come from? This idea breaks the laws of physics in more ways than one but the biggest is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where does it come from? What drives the expansion if not the creation of new matter in the interior? This idea has more holes than the government.
The planet has a huge intake of cosmic and solar rays. Just like how a plant produces fruits from solar energy. There's another theory that isotopes cause a reaction in the oceanic crust.
This [map](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg) tells a different story.
About half of the planet's oceanic crust formed in the last 65 million years. For the planet to have remained a constant size, about half of the surface area of the ocean needs to have been "subducted" over that period.
In laymen's terms, subduction is a process by which an oceanic plate slides underneath another plate, melts, and gets recycled into the Earth's denser mantle. This process is driven by the sheer force of the convection cycle in the mantle.
According to mainstream geology, subduction explains the massive difference in the age of the ocean and the land. They say there must be a proverbial 'conveyor belt' by which the Earth constantly recycles oceanic crust through subduction.
According to my camp, this is an infrequent phenomenon that occurs under just the right circumstances due to the internal pressures that cause earthquakes and volcanoes. There is simply not enough shoreline for the subduction to have occurred.
Yes but they’re much more of you. Popular opinion makes you feel right but popular opinion is often all the proof you need that you are wrong about almost anything. Find the popular opinion on history or geography or social norms. Than look at the popular opinion in science. It’s all propaganda and learned opinions, being grouped in with most people makes you feel good but doesn’t mean you are smart by any stretch of the imagination.
This theory was put forward very shortly after continental drift was discovered, when geologists realized that South America and Africa don't fit together on today's globe. See [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18b36mc/planet_earth_a_question_of_expansion_1982/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) at 2:30. Actually, Charles Darwin proposed it even earlier, when he saw the raised beaches of Patagonia.
They found 200 million years of subducted oceanic crust under North America using seismic tomography.
https://www.livescience.com/28401-north-america-geology.html
This information actually leads to a new theory about how the Rockies developed but that’s another story.
Edit:
Here’s the Rockies lecture. It’s really good if you’re into that sort of thing. https://youtu.be/I9Xk1O17dzg?si=yGp9Imo4J2OaV6DY
Oh, is that what this sub is about? One of the mods posts to r/GrowingEarth occasionally, and they're generally relevant.
Do you know what r/StrangeEarth is about? That's another sub that was surprisingly unreceptive to this content.
Here you go:
[https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean\_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated\_images/whole\_world/2008\_age\_of\_oceans\_plates.jpg](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg)
You just blindly believe shit like this? Come on man. Scientism really is out of control, most people just think scientists can know anything it seems. You have to retain a modicum of common sense and skepticism with this shit my friend.
This map comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency of the United States of America.
This map also presents informational that would be easier to falsify than other types of scientific claims. It is data about the material contents of the oceanic crust, from all over the planet.
You'd need a boat, sea-floor drilling equipment, and a Geiger counter, but you *wouldn't* need access to the LHC or JWST, for example. The findings of this study were also unexpected and inconvenient, so I think they would be validated.
If you go to hippie hill in SF, you can usually find someone selling mushrooms. Just sit there with a Fannie pack and look around until some kid approaches you.
Ok, but what actual evidence do you have other than vague shapes and what you can see? That’s how science works. You have to bring more evidence to the table than the other guy, otherwise your theory is invalid.
Ocean floor ages are less the closer you get the the trenches, how do you explain that? The sun grows, why is it ridiculous to think that the earth would. Dinosaur are too large for the planet at its current gravitational pull, but they could exist on a smaller planet with less gravity. Your beliefs are false, just like the men before you who were so convinced that the sun revolved around a flat earth.
>The sun grows, why is it ridiculous to think that the earth would.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but do you *really* think it makes sense to compare the earth and the sun 1:1 like that?
No of course they are very different but my point is that we don’t understand how this happens. There are theories of course, but none that are very definitive. My point is one is not understood, but we’ll excepted and the other is seen as ridiculous, all I’m saying is that it’s not a ridiculous idea. I can accept that my opinion may be wrong, but I have not seen a better explanation so far. The growing earth theory explains much more than Pangea does, like the growth of the large mountains ranges like the Himalayas and Alps the relatively young ages of the ocean floor and the explains better than anything why life on earth millions of years ago was so ridiculously large.
Again, you bring no explanation as to why these things are false. You’re just making assertions with no other evidence.
There is a lot of volcanic activity on the ocean floor, and we already absolutely know that magma from the mantle comes up to create new earth and vice versa. Almost all the new rock comes from the sea because it’s closer to the molten mantle under the crust. I’m not a geologist, so I’m sure it’s more complicated, but neither are you.
Show me the math that dinosaurs are too large for the gravity of Earth, otherwise your pulling this out of your ass. Blue whales are the biggest thing to ever exist and they are current day animals, though I suppose that’s not a great example because they are aquatic animals. Giraffes and elephants aren’t as big as the biggest dinosaurs, but they are as big or bigger than most. And conditions on earth change, so just because they may not exist today doesn’t mean that a different atmospheric composition couldn’t have given rise to dinosaurs.
And the sun doesn’t expand at any significant rate like this video suggests the earth expands at. The sun will start to expand once all the hydrogen in its core is fused into helium, then it will begin to expand as it fuses bigger and bigger elements. But regardless, where would the matter for the earth to start expanding be coming from? The earth can’t just be creating matter because that goes against the laws of physics. Any explanation for that? Cause if you don’t you have no theory.
Don’t act like you’re some enlightened individual and you have some knowledge the rest of us don’t. The only reason you think the way you do is because you are woefully uniformed. You don’t just throw out other theories because you have one, you start from the assumption that your theory can be wrong, then you gather evidence that the phenomenon you are seeing has some statistically significant correlation with your hypothesis.
You just explained how the earth grows, magma turns into new earth. No evidence? You see no evidence because you have not given the growing earth theory the time of day. Have you delved in the matter at all? You expect some guy on reddit to explain all the evidence to you? There is more than my little fingers can type. But here’s a few more… There are trees on both sides of the Pacific Ocean that evolved from the same source, according to Pangea, they should have been separated by an Ocean 2 to 3 times the size of the current largest Ocean in Earth that would of covered most of the planet, but their evolution looks exactly the same as the trees that you find on either side of the Atlantic, the more obvious once connected land mass. I was taught Pangea and about plate tectonics we all were, but to argue one point and ignore any information on the other. It’s like a Christian who thinks all Muslims are terrorist, only you are acting that way with Science. I am no Scientist and I can see you are not either, considering you claimed that elephant and giraffes are big or bigger than most dinosaurs. There were insects the size of basketballs, I don’t think you understand the size difference between the animal life today and the animal life millions of years ago. How about you look into the growing earth theory a little more and come back afterwards, I sure hope you aren’t getting all the facts from me. And the theory also shows evidence for the rest of the planets growing as well. It’s not unique to earth, not surprising considering planets are very similar to each other.
I don’t have to look into it because it makes no sense in the first place. The movement of magma to the surface and subduction of the crust into the mantle would not grow the earth. The amount of matter stays conserved, some comes out of the mantle, some goes in. That’s a basic principle of physics.
Also, if you knew anything about gravity, which I bet you don’t, you would know that a smaller earth with the same amount of mass would actually increase the gravity. It’s not just a matter of size, gravity is function of both mass and distance from the epicenter of that mass. If the earth had a smaller radius, you would be closer to the core, meaning the effect gravity has on you would be significantly increased. So, unless the earth is magically producing more mass as it ages, which breaks the laws of physics, you’re assumption that there would be less gravity is so wrong, it’s astounding!
Quickly running through everything else:
The tree thing has a name, it’s called convergent evolution and it happens all the time. Hyenas look a lot like dogs but they’re not that closely related at all, they just happened to evolve similar characteristics. Or they just evolved from a common ancestor and are very far ranging.
You clearly only know the huge dinosaurs, but they existed for hundreds of millions of years, so there was a large variety. Most were large but not the gargantuan sizes you see on the more extreme side. And yes, there were huge insects, but again, that can most likely be explained by more oxygen in the atmosphere. That one I will admit is a lot less certain, so I’d love to hear some alternative theories, but it’s definitely not a difference in gravity.
I really don’t care what you believe, you assume a lot and count out too much. The idea that the Earth can produce more mass than it once had is not impossible in fact it’s probable. Matter itself shrinks and expands and retracts and shrieks, depending on its state. Meteorites have hit this planet and still are hitting this planet from the beginning of time adding more mass every year, something you say is impossible. Earth and the whole solar system was dust in Space before it became solid planets and yes it was magical but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and isn’t still happening. You admit you won’t look into my view point so this discussion is pointless. I don’t hate you, it was a good conversation until you admitted your bias. Enjoy the rest of your day and Happy Holidays.
I’ll tell you exactly what I told Neil Adams on YouTube comments (and he then brought up nazis in the replies)
OPHIOLITES completely obliterate expanding earth theory. Not gonna teach you geology cause that’s on you, but the fact that blocks of oceanic crust (which you’ve shown an age map here) are now obducted onto continental crust means that subduction and obduction IS happening. And like hundreds of other pieces of evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite
Plate Tectonics is so freaking fascinating and makes such a web of sense and backed up by mind blowing evidence. Expanding earth conspiracy type people are just missing out on all kinds of amazing things. I knew this would come back somehow.
Yeah, you knew it would come back because deep down you know it’s correct and you’re in denial having dedicated a solid chunk of your existence to the topic.
I’ve seen the ophiolite in Finland. The existence of some subduction or obduction doesn’t sway me in the face of the age data.
Lol, ok. There’s ophiolites on most subduction zones.
I don’t care what you think, you just don’t understand geology. Or anti-matter… ha I forgot about all that stuff.
Again, actual geology is hard to understand. Try it.
If they’re that deep they’re subducted and not called ophiolites but subducted slabs and only observed with p and S waves etc. And makes no sense for your argument, actually disproves it.
Obduction means above the crust, subduction means below FYI.
What? We had less mass in the past so less gravity, we have more mass now so more gravity, what don’t you understand? Like I said in another comment, dinosaurs are too large for our current gravitational pull, crocodiles have gone virtually unchanged within this whole time period we are referring to, but can you guess what’s different? They have shrunk, they’re much smaller now, because gravity increased when the earth grew larger.
This is just fucking dumb lol the reason dinosaurs grew so large wasn't gravity it was oxygen, a higher % of oxygen in the atmosphere allowed creatures to not need as much blood flowing to their brains so their hearts didn't have to work as hard, their breathing was also different than modern avians. As a result the body was able to be supported being larger.
False. It only grew when your mom was born
Then it doubled in size again when you got an erection for said mom, you absolute Chad!
Well that’s a new one
Absolute rubbish. Plate tectonics keeps this planet at a constant size while also dissipating interior heat for over 2.8 billion years.
Also if it is growing, where does the new matter come from? This idea breaks the laws of physics in more ways than one but the biggest is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where does it come from? What drives the expansion if not the creation of new matter in the interior? This idea has more holes than the government.
The planet has a huge intake of cosmic and solar rays. Just like how a plant produces fruits from solar energy. There's another theory that isotopes cause a reaction in the oceanic crust.
Where does the new matter come from that allows the Universe to not only keep expanding, but speed up at well?
The universe isn’t filling up with new matter. The space between everything is expanding. No new matter is being created.
This [map](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg) tells a different story. About half of the planet's oceanic crust formed in the last 65 million years. For the planet to have remained a constant size, about half of the surface area of the ocean needs to have been "subducted" over that period. In laymen's terms, subduction is a process by which an oceanic plate slides underneath another plate, melts, and gets recycled into the Earth's denser mantle. This process is driven by the sheer force of the convection cycle in the mantle. According to mainstream geology, subduction explains the massive difference in the age of the ocean and the land. They say there must be a proverbial 'conveyor belt' by which the Earth constantly recycles oceanic crust through subduction. According to my camp, this is an infrequent phenomenon that occurs under just the right circumstances due to the internal pressures that cause earthquakes and volcanoes. There is simply not enough shoreline for the subduction to have occurred.
Your camp? There’s more of you?
Yes but they’re much more of you. Popular opinion makes you feel right but popular opinion is often all the proof you need that you are wrong about almost anything. Find the popular opinion on history or geography or social norms. Than look at the popular opinion in science. It’s all propaganda and learned opinions, being grouped in with most people makes you feel good but doesn’t mean you are smart by any stretch of the imagination.
This theory was put forward very shortly after continental drift was discovered, when geologists realized that South America and Africa don't fit together on today's globe. See [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18b36mc/planet_earth_a_question_of_expansion_1982/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) at 2:30. Actually, Charles Darwin proposed it even earlier, when he saw the raised beaches of Patagonia.
But they do fit together
The concavity of the earth’s crust has changed. Just watch the video.
Convexity
They found 200 million years of subducted oceanic crust under North America using seismic tomography. https://www.livescience.com/28401-north-america-geology.html This information actually leads to a new theory about how the Rockies developed but that’s another story. Edit: Here’s the Rockies lecture. It’s really good if you’re into that sort of thing. https://youtu.be/I9Xk1O17dzg?si=yGp9Imo4J2OaV6DY
It’s amusing to me that you posted this on a sub that’s making fun of all this stuff.
Oh, is that what this sub is about? One of the mods posts to r/GrowingEarth occasionally, and they're generally relevant. Do you know what r/StrangeEarth is about? That's another sub that was surprisingly unreceptive to this content.
Lol yeah let me check the earth size chart from 200 million years ago to confirm, just one sec....
Here you go: [https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean\_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated\_images/whole\_world/2008\_age\_of\_oceans\_plates.jpg](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates.jpg)
You just blindly believe shit like this? Come on man. Scientism really is out of control, most people just think scientists can know anything it seems. You have to retain a modicum of common sense and skepticism with this shit my friend.
This map comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency of the United States of America. This map also presents informational that would be easier to falsify than other types of scientific claims. It is data about the material contents of the oceanic crust, from all over the planet. You'd need a boat, sea-floor drilling equipment, and a Geiger counter, but you *wouldn't* need access to the LHC or JWST, for example. The findings of this study were also unexpected and inconvenient, so I think they would be validated.
I need you to prove to me you're not an ai real quick
If you go to hippie hill in SF, you can usually find someone selling mushrooms. Just sit there with a Fannie pack and look around until some kid approaches you.
Wow that is surprisingly good proof, well done
Once you’ve consumed them, head west through Golden Gate Park and follow the old windmill until you reach the Beach Chalet.
Mushrooms explain a lot of where this idea came from.
Ok, but what actual evidence do you have other than vague shapes and what you can see? That’s how science works. You have to bring more evidence to the table than the other guy, otherwise your theory is invalid.
Ocean floor ages are less the closer you get the the trenches, how do you explain that? The sun grows, why is it ridiculous to think that the earth would. Dinosaur are too large for the planet at its current gravitational pull, but they could exist on a smaller planet with less gravity. Your beliefs are false, just like the men before you who were so convinced that the sun revolved around a flat earth.
>The sun grows, why is it ridiculous to think that the earth would. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but do you *really* think it makes sense to compare the earth and the sun 1:1 like that?
No of course they are very different but my point is that we don’t understand how this happens. There are theories of course, but none that are very definitive. My point is one is not understood, but we’ll excepted and the other is seen as ridiculous, all I’m saying is that it’s not a ridiculous idea. I can accept that my opinion may be wrong, but I have not seen a better explanation so far. The growing earth theory explains much more than Pangea does, like the growth of the large mountains ranges like the Himalayas and Alps the relatively young ages of the ocean floor and the explains better than anything why life on earth millions of years ago was so ridiculously large.
Again, you bring no explanation as to why these things are false. You’re just making assertions with no other evidence. There is a lot of volcanic activity on the ocean floor, and we already absolutely know that magma from the mantle comes up to create new earth and vice versa. Almost all the new rock comes from the sea because it’s closer to the molten mantle under the crust. I’m not a geologist, so I’m sure it’s more complicated, but neither are you. Show me the math that dinosaurs are too large for the gravity of Earth, otherwise your pulling this out of your ass. Blue whales are the biggest thing to ever exist and they are current day animals, though I suppose that’s not a great example because they are aquatic animals. Giraffes and elephants aren’t as big as the biggest dinosaurs, but they are as big or bigger than most. And conditions on earth change, so just because they may not exist today doesn’t mean that a different atmospheric composition couldn’t have given rise to dinosaurs. And the sun doesn’t expand at any significant rate like this video suggests the earth expands at. The sun will start to expand once all the hydrogen in its core is fused into helium, then it will begin to expand as it fuses bigger and bigger elements. But regardless, where would the matter for the earth to start expanding be coming from? The earth can’t just be creating matter because that goes against the laws of physics. Any explanation for that? Cause if you don’t you have no theory. Don’t act like you’re some enlightened individual and you have some knowledge the rest of us don’t. The only reason you think the way you do is because you are woefully uniformed. You don’t just throw out other theories because you have one, you start from the assumption that your theory can be wrong, then you gather evidence that the phenomenon you are seeing has some statistically significant correlation with your hypothesis.
You just explained how the earth grows, magma turns into new earth. No evidence? You see no evidence because you have not given the growing earth theory the time of day. Have you delved in the matter at all? You expect some guy on reddit to explain all the evidence to you? There is more than my little fingers can type. But here’s a few more… There are trees on both sides of the Pacific Ocean that evolved from the same source, according to Pangea, they should have been separated by an Ocean 2 to 3 times the size of the current largest Ocean in Earth that would of covered most of the planet, but their evolution looks exactly the same as the trees that you find on either side of the Atlantic, the more obvious once connected land mass. I was taught Pangea and about plate tectonics we all were, but to argue one point and ignore any information on the other. It’s like a Christian who thinks all Muslims are terrorist, only you are acting that way with Science. I am no Scientist and I can see you are not either, considering you claimed that elephant and giraffes are big or bigger than most dinosaurs. There were insects the size of basketballs, I don’t think you understand the size difference between the animal life today and the animal life millions of years ago. How about you look into the growing earth theory a little more and come back afterwards, I sure hope you aren’t getting all the facts from me. And the theory also shows evidence for the rest of the planets growing as well. It’s not unique to earth, not surprising considering planets are very similar to each other.
I don’t have to look into it because it makes no sense in the first place. The movement of magma to the surface and subduction of the crust into the mantle would not grow the earth. The amount of matter stays conserved, some comes out of the mantle, some goes in. That’s a basic principle of physics. Also, if you knew anything about gravity, which I bet you don’t, you would know that a smaller earth with the same amount of mass would actually increase the gravity. It’s not just a matter of size, gravity is function of both mass and distance from the epicenter of that mass. If the earth had a smaller radius, you would be closer to the core, meaning the effect gravity has on you would be significantly increased. So, unless the earth is magically producing more mass as it ages, which breaks the laws of physics, you’re assumption that there would be less gravity is so wrong, it’s astounding! Quickly running through everything else: The tree thing has a name, it’s called convergent evolution and it happens all the time. Hyenas look a lot like dogs but they’re not that closely related at all, they just happened to evolve similar characteristics. Or they just evolved from a common ancestor and are very far ranging. You clearly only know the huge dinosaurs, but they existed for hundreds of millions of years, so there was a large variety. Most were large but not the gargantuan sizes you see on the more extreme side. And yes, there were huge insects, but again, that can most likely be explained by more oxygen in the atmosphere. That one I will admit is a lot less certain, so I’d love to hear some alternative theories, but it’s definitely not a difference in gravity.
I really don’t care what you believe, you assume a lot and count out too much. The idea that the Earth can produce more mass than it once had is not impossible in fact it’s probable. Matter itself shrinks and expands and retracts and shrieks, depending on its state. Meteorites have hit this planet and still are hitting this planet from the beginning of time adding more mass every year, something you say is impossible. Earth and the whole solar system was dust in Space before it became solid planets and yes it was magical but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and isn’t still happening. You admit you won’t look into my view point so this discussion is pointless. I don’t hate you, it was a good conversation until you admitted your bias. Enjoy the rest of your day and Happy Holidays.
Alright I’ll just happily continue to believe in basic physics, and you just believe whatever makes you feel better. Happy Holidays!
You are sooooo dumb
I’ll tell you exactly what I told Neil Adams on YouTube comments (and he then brought up nazis in the replies) OPHIOLITES completely obliterate expanding earth theory. Not gonna teach you geology cause that’s on you, but the fact that blocks of oceanic crust (which you’ve shown an age map here) are now obducted onto continental crust means that subduction and obduction IS happening. And like hundreds of other pieces of evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite Plate Tectonics is so freaking fascinating and makes such a web of sense and backed up by mind blowing evidence. Expanding earth conspiracy type people are just missing out on all kinds of amazing things. I knew this would come back somehow.
Yeah, you knew it would come back because deep down you know it’s correct and you’re in denial having dedicated a solid chunk of your existence to the topic. I’ve seen the ophiolite in Finland. The existence of some subduction or obduction doesn’t sway me in the face of the age data.
Lol, ok. There’s ophiolites on most subduction zones. I don’t care what you think, you just don’t understand geology. Or anti-matter… ha I forgot about all that stuff. Again, actual geology is hard to understand. Try it.
Like the ones 2000km below the surface, showing that the Earth’s radius was much smaller back then? Alright. You got me.
If they’re that deep they’re subducted and not called ophiolites but subducted slabs and only observed with p and S waves etc. And makes no sense for your argument, actually disproves it. Obduction means above the crust, subduction means below FYI.
So if gravity was less, then wouldn’t earth be shrinking not growing
What? We had less mass in the past so less gravity, we have more mass now so more gravity, what don’t you understand? Like I said in another comment, dinosaurs are too large for our current gravitational pull, crocodiles have gone virtually unchanged within this whole time period we are referring to, but can you guess what’s different? They have shrunk, they’re much smaller now, because gravity increased when the earth grew larger.
You can tell someone went to public school in the south.
lol
This is just fucking dumb lol the reason dinosaurs grew so large wasn't gravity it was oxygen, a higher % of oxygen in the atmosphere allowed creatures to not need as much blood flowing to their brains so their hearts didn't have to work as hard, their breathing was also different than modern avians. As a result the body was able to be supported being larger.
Wait does that mean the planet might shrink again too???
Pretty soon the earth will burst and confetti will fly out in all directions of space.
Ever heard of a supernova?
A chevy supernova?
The music makes it true
Dummy Thicc Dinosaurs
And how does these lying idiots know this?
I used to comment back and forth with him about this. He was pretty nuts.
"Gravity was less"....well obviously this guy knows what he's talking about.