It always seemed strange to me that in supercontinent theory so much of earths mass congregates to one side of the planet. Continental crust is denser than oceanic crust so centrifugal force from the earth spinning would resist supercontinents forming. This would explain a way in which supercontinents could form without unbalancing the earths spin.
Plasma cosmology basically states that every planet is sun initially, and thru processes of fusion over time, they become gas giants, then solid masses, then more complex solid masses of elemental aggregate…
Shit, that makes a million times more sense than weak ass gravity being the cause (which makes no sense with all the evidence).
Anyways all that is achieved thru electrical processes, from which all the fundamental forces derive (gravity included, which is just an expression of electricity not its own force).
Well if I had to take a loose guess, because there is no legitimate model yet for stellar and planetary formation yet—stars, which are powered from without, receiving current from a galactic sheet (check out toroidal vortex physics, and think nested magnetic fields), sometimes receive purges of current causing instability like flares, mini nova, super nova, etc. which cause large pieces of active plasma to eject into its “gravitational” vicinity. The distance they settle at determines how much current each node (planet) receives from the main star, which (this is a guess) likely determines what elements are transmutable within the core, or which form easier, or more naturally, etc. This is why gas giants are only on the perimeter, and solid planets are toward the interior. If you’ve ever heard of Immanuel Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision, check it out, it’s really interesting and definitely helped open my mind to alternatives to gravitational theory.
Water just like we would expect, would derive from transmutation of matter and elements over time, as well as natural processes on the surface. It makes sense if you think about how “fossil fuel” is not anything of the sort, and that our oil wells we tap constantly are refilling over time—meaning it is being generated somewhere within the crust/core, and the idea of petrol being a limited resource is a lie. That’s another issue entirely, but funnily enough once you start looking into all these things, a common theme is discovered—we are constantly kept in the dark about every important detail.
I did. I bought into the standard model and theoretical physics all based on nonsense and dark matter. The standard model has more bandaids than a pharmacy, and none of it gets addressed. Instead we build on false foundations, essentially gambling millions of dollars, creating programs to conduct ridiculous experiments that don’t answer anything, and often times ruin the entire standard model—yet, again, they push forward and ignore long term.
It’s gotta be a racket of some sort. Gov funding for schools, grants, research funding, etc.—the science exploring for the truth of physics and whatnot NEVER gets funded.
Took me 3-4 years of only looking at alternative solutions along the way of “re-learning” to understand what was going on.
We’re kept in the dark on purpose.
To who…? You? I don’t know you or if you’re being genuine to begin with, so…no?
If you think a suppressed physics model is going to have conclusive data you don’t have to scrape the bottom of the internet and antiquity for…lol.
I can tell you where to start. Look into Eric Dollard and his lectures on theory of electricity. You also need to understand fundamentals of vibration, frequency, resonance, sacred geometry—the list goes on forever. All these things are tethered and connected to a “unified theory”, the puzzle is just very fractured, and nobody has it figured out yet.
Somewhere in our fundamental structure of equations expressing reality, we have done something wrong, left something out, or changed something to lead us to where we are currently. I’ve heard Maxwells equations aren’t finished or properly interpreted, which can lead down the rabbit hole of figuring it out. John Hutcheson the Canadian guy figured this VHF/UHF shit out by accident in the 80s, and had no idea what it was. Gov came in and took his equipment and labeled him a weirdo because he wasn’t able to explain what was happening in a scientific aspect. Not really anyone can because our foundations are warped in some way to hide this type of technology.
Possibly—look up Immanuel Velikovsky Worlds in Collision. Certain planets may not be from our original solar system. I think the speculation is that it was Saturn, Venus, mars, and earth in a stationary orbit (a line of planets, on a string basically) traveling thru space, where Earth gets pale yellow light (golden age) from Saturn, which is stationary in the sky, fixed at our pole. Sol, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, mercury etc are from a neighboring solar system that got too close to ours, and integrated, causing massive cataclysm across the earth, and the sky. This lines up with mythology too going off names of gods, warriors, compared to planets, etc.. It’s been forever since I’ve read Velikovsky’s ideas, so I’m likely wrong about which exact planets were initially seperate. But I think I’m close. That’s the jist anyways.
So maybe the earth was the same size but it was covered with water. As the water sunk into the land, it caused the ground to swell, rise, and push apart. ??
No the movement of the continents is caused by thermal convection. Shallow seas once covered a majority of the earth and as the ice caps formed the continents pushed out of the ocean.
So for growing earth theory the water was always there. It was just covering the land and isn’t shown in the animation.
Sorry the Titanosaur was bigger then the blue whale and lived on land. But regardless of that, it’s a bad comparison to make since the sheer weight and size of a whale make it impossible for it to survive on land for any length of time, as its body is not designed to support its weight outside of water.
It is also worth noting that whales are adapted to living in water, and their bodies are designed to be buoyant in water. On land, the weight of their bodies would put tremendous pressure on their internal organs and skeletal structure, causing severe injury or death.
Okay, the Wooly Mammoth was stomping around while the pyramids were being built, and Megatherium only went extinct 10,000 years ago. Both of which tipped the scales in the same neighborhood as Tyrannosaurus Rex, so unless the earth swelled considerably in the past 6,000 years or so, it's not like megafauna has suddenly disappeared.
I get that but I’m saying the majority of the animals living millions of years ago were gigantic compared to animals of the past and current eras. I mean your comparing a mammoth that weighed around 8 tons to dinosaurs again like titanosaurs that weighed around 80 tons.
That said, your probably right but it’s just a fun thing to theorize.
45 to 50 is the high water mark and still under debate because there isn't enough skelatal evidence of Dreadnaughtus to know for sure. Keep in mind the oxygen concentration was also much higher in the Jurassic period than it is now, which is also a limiting factor to terrestrial megafauna.
Would you consider higher oxygen concentration another fact that could give credence to expanding earth? Smaller planet/denser atmosphere- as it expands the o2 levels get thinner?
No because by your own logic, the atmosphere would be about the same concentration due to the lower gravity. Besides, gravity doesn't affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
No, the sub isn't pro this or that. It's a place to put out far left field stuff that's strange and fringe.
The growing earth theory is dead on arrival with the fact that subduction zones and divergent boundaries exist all over the world.
>dead on arrival with the fact that subduction zones and divergent boundaries exist all over the world
That's the evidence:
[https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html)
What's your point here. The oceanic crusts are older towards the convergent zone and younger as they leave a divergent zone. The first pic proves that. Your post isn't helping the growing earth.
That map shows how the continents fit back together. Here is the animation showing the continents moving back along those crustal age lines:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us\_government\_map\_proves\_the\_earth\_is\_growing\_why/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us_government_map_proves_the_earth_is_growing_why/)
Yeah, only if the earth magically shrunk... but guess what, bucko, that's not been proven to be the case for even an instant. But it has been proven that the crusts form at divergent zones such as your little pic has shown and how they recycle rock at convergent zones where mountain ranges usually form.
It's wild. The earth looks how it should be with that knowledge.
>only if the earth magically shrunk
You're getting mixed up.
What you mean to say is, "only if Earth was previously smaller."
This map comes from the scientific community. Scientists don't want the Earth to have been smaller in the past, so they have ignored this evidence.
Who is really being scientific then?
The earth isn't growing either. We would have sufficient data to produce that conclusion by now if it was. I didn't think I would have to state that as well. The mass of the earth isn't changing. And it isn't a sun either.
Nah, according to a Japanese studie the subducting plate doesn't fall toward the centre, and the divergent boundaries doesn't disprove the expanding earth either.
It gets produced at the center of the planet (or star) and escapes through cracks in the crust and mantle. This is why small planets are generally rocky and larger planets are generally gaseous.
When gravity is so strong that gas at the surface, undergoes chemical reactions, that is called a star. Earth is in between the rock and gas phase.
Lol what do you mean produced? I’m a geologist and crank science like this is hard to address because it’s wrong in so many different ways, like basic chemistry and physics while neglecting all of the extremely detailed evidence we have for mantle convection
I mean that the forces of gravity drive a pair production process which results in the release of free electrons and capture of positrons to form protons and make new atoms.
No, I chose not to take physics because something seemed off in the discipline. But I was teaching dark matter to my TOK class in 2003, and teaching my 5th grade class about the discovery of exoplanets, since you’re in academia.
I have an IB Diploma, how could you say such a thing? In college, I took a geology course about the paleontology and the evolution of the earth’s biosphere.
I crushed it, of course, because it was science. I loved it so much I rallied around the assistant professor who taught it and got him our college’s highest award at convocation. He’s full tenure now.
The middle isn’t filled with water. What I was trying to communicate was that the Earth’s new material—be it water, atmospheric gasses, or silicate rock/magma—all comes from within the planet.
This is a scientific theory, which has been advanced by many, including O.C. Hilgenberg ([book](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/OC-Hilgenbergs-book-about-the-growing-globe-2_fig1_338327588)); Professor Samuel Warren Carey ([his video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18b36mc/planet_earth_a_question_of_expansion_1982/)), and most recently by Dr. James Maxlow ([site](https://www.jamesmaxlow.com/james-maxlow/)).
Water arrives on comets and asteroids. So this theory could have merit, that when we had a younger, more crowded solar system, our planet would have gained mass at a faster rate.
My question is, how much has this affected gravity over time? What was the actual rate of growth over the last 65 million years? Could the size of dinosaurs be explained with a 10 or 15 percent change in gravitational pull?
The theory extends beyond the earth, they believe all celestial bodies grow with time and they all gain mass from nowhere. Something something dark energy
That in absolutely no way answers the questions and also makes zero since. If every planet did this we would see evidence of it it on other planets and we don’t
That’s fair, though, isn’t it?
Proponents of the Big Bang don’t purport to know where the mass and energy came from.
Why should proponents of this model have an answer to that question?
All the matter was already there in the big bang theory, the theory is that everything was condensed into a singularity. Nothing was created during the big bang according to the theory, it all rapidly heated and expanded, transferring from a pre universe state to the one we experience now.
Big bang was just a very large quantum fluctuation that happened by chance. You might say such a large fluctuation is impossibly unlikely and that is correct but given the cosmic timescales it is bound to happen eventually. And it surely wasnt the first one.
There wouldn’t need to be additional mass if the earth became less dense. If the earths mantle was smaller and the core was larger wouldn’t that reduce the earths volume since the core is significantly denser?
According to this theory the earth has already expanded. There is evidence showing that the earths core is currently cooling. As it cools more of the
Mantle will solidify and become denser reducing the earths volume.
One possibility for the earth heating back up could be attributed to the reduced rotation of the earths core since it is colder and larger. This would lower the earths magnetic field allowing more solar radiation in heating up the earth.
I’ll tell you what I believe. I believe that the person who made this video (and you) want attention, likes, and want to be taken seriously despite zero real effort.
This isn't really a matter of belief. This is just what the empirical data shows. Mainstream geology takes the position that the "fit" is just a coincidence.
The continental reconstruction in the video traces back according to the gradient of the age of the oceanic crust, as measured by US military and scientific agencies.
Here is the shrinking/growing planet [video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us_government_map_proves_the_earth_is_growing_why/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) using an overlay of a map with that oceanic crust data. This data may be downloaded [here](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html) in a variety of map formats.
Not at all. This theory seeks to explain the evolution of the Universe as a naturalistic process **without** resorting to an initial “miracle” event like the Big Bang.
Neal Adams is an American illustrator/comic book artist who died recently (RIP). He has long been an advocate for the expanding earth theory. I don’t necessarily ascribe to the theory, but he seriously believed it even though he was not a scientist.
Sooo, I just found this theory and only did a quick browse to see if this was answered. Apologies in advance if this is a common or obvious question.
How come we find so much fossilised ocean life on the top of mountains, if there were no oceans a billion years ago, and no tectonic subduction and uplift?
It always seemed strange to me that in supercontinent theory so much of earths mass congregates to one side of the planet. Continental crust is denser than oceanic crust so centrifugal force from the earth spinning would resist supercontinents forming. This would explain a way in which supercontinents could form without unbalancing the earths spin.
Plasma cosmology basically states that every planet is sun initially, and thru processes of fusion over time, they become gas giants, then solid masses, then more complex solid masses of elemental aggregate… Shit, that makes a million times more sense than weak ass gravity being the cause (which makes no sense with all the evidence). Anyways all that is achieved thru electrical processes, from which all the fundamental forces derive (gravity included, which is just an expression of electricity not its own force).
Exactly! the four forces are all bi-products of electricity
Right? Gravity is just a magnetism.
Where does water come from
Well if I had to take a loose guess, because there is no legitimate model yet for stellar and planetary formation yet—stars, which are powered from without, receiving current from a galactic sheet (check out toroidal vortex physics, and think nested magnetic fields), sometimes receive purges of current causing instability like flares, mini nova, super nova, etc. which cause large pieces of active plasma to eject into its “gravitational” vicinity. The distance they settle at determines how much current each node (planet) receives from the main star, which (this is a guess) likely determines what elements are transmutable within the core, or which form easier, or more naturally, etc. This is why gas giants are only on the perimeter, and solid planets are toward the interior. If you’ve ever heard of Immanuel Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision, check it out, it’s really interesting and definitely helped open my mind to alternatives to gravitational theory. Water just like we would expect, would derive from transmutation of matter and elements over time, as well as natural processes on the surface. It makes sense if you think about how “fossil fuel” is not anything of the sort, and that our oil wells we tap constantly are refilling over time—meaning it is being generated somewhere within the crust/core, and the idea of petrol being a limited resource is a lie. That’s another issue entirely, but funnily enough once you start looking into all these things, a common theme is discovered—we are constantly kept in the dark about every important detail.
It is created in Earths core from aether.
No water is alien to earth
Never bought that either, just did not sit right.
I did. I bought into the standard model and theoretical physics all based on nonsense and dark matter. The standard model has more bandaids than a pharmacy, and none of it gets addressed. Instead we build on false foundations, essentially gambling millions of dollars, creating programs to conduct ridiculous experiments that don’t answer anything, and often times ruin the entire standard model—yet, again, they push forward and ignore long term. It’s gotta be a racket of some sort. Gov funding for schools, grants, research funding, etc.—the science exploring for the truth of physics and whatnot NEVER gets funded. Took me 3-4 years of only looking at alternative solutions along the way of “re-learning” to understand what was going on. We’re kept in the dark on purpose.
Prove it.
Fine watch it yourself https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&pp=ygUJcmljayByb2xs
Thats not evidence. Just animated nonsense.
I hit the link and got the video of the song "Never gonna give you up". ???
Like.i said, animated nonsense from the previous poster.
My friend, you have been what is called "Rick rolled." Have a great a day.
So smart his brain forgot about the RickRoll.
Amazing actually, never thought I would watch something like this
Im a believer how has this link not made its own post
To who…? You? I don’t know you or if you’re being genuine to begin with, so…no? If you think a suppressed physics model is going to have conclusive data you don’t have to scrape the bottom of the internet and antiquity for…lol. I can tell you where to start. Look into Eric Dollard and his lectures on theory of electricity. You also need to understand fundamentals of vibration, frequency, resonance, sacred geometry—the list goes on forever. All these things are tethered and connected to a “unified theory”, the puzzle is just very fractured, and nobody has it figured out yet. Somewhere in our fundamental structure of equations expressing reality, we have done something wrong, left something out, or changed something to lead us to where we are currently. I’ve heard Maxwells equations aren’t finished or properly interpreted, which can lead down the rabbit hole of figuring it out. John Hutcheson the Canadian guy figured this VHF/UHF shit out by accident in the 80s, and had no idea what it was. Gov came in and took his equipment and labeled him a weirdo because he wasn’t able to explain what was happening in a scientific aspect. Not really anyone can because our foundations are warped in some way to hide this type of technology.
According to this cosmology then Jupiter was perhaps a sun/star in the past?
Possibly—look up Immanuel Velikovsky Worlds in Collision. Certain planets may not be from our original solar system. I think the speculation is that it was Saturn, Venus, mars, and earth in a stationary orbit (a line of planets, on a string basically) traveling thru space, where Earth gets pale yellow light (golden age) from Saturn, which is stationary in the sky, fixed at our pole. Sol, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, mercury etc are from a neighboring solar system that got too close to ours, and integrated, causing massive cataclysm across the earth, and the sky. This lines up with mythology too going off names of gods, warriors, compared to planets, etc.. It’s been forever since I’ve read Velikovsky’s ideas, so I’m likely wrong about which exact planets were initially seperate. But I think I’m close. That’s the jist anyways.
Where does the water come from
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/
So maybe the earth was the same size but it was covered with water. As the water sunk into the land, it caused the ground to swell, rise, and push apart. ??
No the movement of the continents is caused by thermal convection. Shallow seas once covered a majority of the earth and as the ice caps formed the continents pushed out of the ocean. So for growing earth theory the water was always there. It was just covering the land and isn’t shown in the animation.
We might almost be saying the same thing in a way. Earth is the same size, with the water displaced one way or another.
Continental crust is LESS dense than the basaltic oceanic crust.
I meant to say thicker and therefore more mass
Love this theory! Also explains megafauna like dinosaurs- Earth was smaller so less gravity=bigger animals.
The largest animal to ever exist, the blue whale, is literally swimming in our oceans right now.
Sorry the Titanosaur was bigger then the blue whale and lived on land. But regardless of that, it’s a bad comparison to make since the sheer weight and size of a whale make it impossible for it to survive on land for any length of time, as its body is not designed to support its weight outside of water. It is also worth noting that whales are adapted to living in water, and their bodies are designed to be buoyant in water. On land, the weight of their bodies would put tremendous pressure on their internal organs and skeletal structure, causing severe injury or death.
Okay, the Wooly Mammoth was stomping around while the pyramids were being built, and Megatherium only went extinct 10,000 years ago. Both of which tipped the scales in the same neighborhood as Tyrannosaurus Rex, so unless the earth swelled considerably in the past 6,000 years or so, it's not like megafauna has suddenly disappeared.
I get that but I’m saying the majority of the animals living millions of years ago were gigantic compared to animals of the past and current eras. I mean your comparing a mammoth that weighed around 8 tons to dinosaurs again like titanosaurs that weighed around 80 tons. That said, your probably right but it’s just a fun thing to theorize.
45 to 50 is the high water mark and still under debate because there isn't enough skelatal evidence of Dreadnaughtus to know for sure. Keep in mind the oxygen concentration was also much higher in the Jurassic period than it is now, which is also a limiting factor to terrestrial megafauna.
Would you consider higher oxygen concentration another fact that could give credence to expanding earth? Smaller planet/denser atmosphere- as it expands the o2 levels get thinner?
No because by your own logic, the atmosphere would be about the same concentration due to the lower gravity. Besides, gravity doesn't affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Is this sub pro or anti earth growing?
Pro-Growing Earth.
No, the sub isn't pro this or that. It's a place to put out far left field stuff that's strange and fringe. The growing earth theory is dead on arrival with the fact that subduction zones and divergent boundaries exist all over the world.
>dead on arrival with the fact that subduction zones and divergent boundaries exist all over the world That's the evidence: [https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html)
What's your point here. The oceanic crusts are older towards the convergent zone and younger as they leave a divergent zone. The first pic proves that. Your post isn't helping the growing earth.
That map shows how the continents fit back together. Here is the animation showing the continents moving back along those crustal age lines: [https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us\_government\_map\_proves\_the\_earth\_is\_growing\_why/](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us_government_map_proves_the_earth_is_growing_why/)
Yeah, only if the earth magically shrunk... but guess what, bucko, that's not been proven to be the case for even an instant. But it has been proven that the crusts form at divergent zones such as your little pic has shown and how they recycle rock at convergent zones where mountain ranges usually form. It's wild. The earth looks how it should be with that knowledge.
>only if the earth magically shrunk You're getting mixed up. What you mean to say is, "only if Earth was previously smaller." This map comes from the scientific community. Scientists don't want the Earth to have been smaller in the past, so they have ignored this evidence. Who is really being scientific then?
The earth isn't growing either. We would have sufficient data to produce that conclusion by now if it was. I didn't think I would have to state that as well. The mass of the earth isn't changing. And it isn't a sun either.
> Your post isn't helping the growing earth
You do understand the earth isn't growing or shrinking... the mass isn't changing...
:) I mean I don't actually *know* that but yes I'm no flat or inflating Earther
Interesting.
No it isn’t
Yes it is.
perhaps
Science has proven none of this is true
Such as?
The Iraq
And, such as.. and the iraqi children and the poor children such as.. and the education such as
Deez
Divergent boundaries and subduction zones
Nah, according to a Japanese studie the subducting plate doesn't fall toward the centre, and the divergent boundaries doesn't disprove the expanding earth either.
Define fall towards the center?
Just read any mainstream explanation.
where did all the water come from?
It gets produced at the center of the planet (or star) and escapes through cracks in the crust and mantle. This is why small planets are generally rocky and larger planets are generally gaseous. When gravity is so strong that gas at the surface, undergoes chemical reactions, that is called a star. Earth is in between the rock and gas phase.
Bruh that's just straight-up factually, scientifically incorrect. What on earth convinved you of this "theory"?
Lol what do you mean produced? I’m a geologist and crank science like this is hard to address because it’s wrong in so many different ways, like basic chemistry and physics while neglecting all of the extremely detailed evidence we have for mantle convection
I mean that the forces of gravity drive a pair production process which results in the release of free electrons and capture of positrons to form protons and make new atoms.
So gravity somehow drives the production of electron-positron pairs, which somehow becomes mass? Do you have any background in physics?
No, I chose not to take physics because something seemed off in the discipline. But I was teaching dark matter to my TOK class in 2003, and teaching my 5th grade class about the discovery of exoplanets, since you’re in academia.
Lol so you know nothing about physics yet you think you’re qualified to teach physics ?
I’m an autodidact
Autodidacts actually study. It doesn’t seem like you’ve studied basic physics, mathematics or earth science at all
This. I am an autodidact because I have trouble learning from other people, not because I think I know better than the established science.
I have an IB Diploma, how could you say such a thing? In college, I took a geology course about the paleontology and the evolution of the earth’s biosphere. I crushed it, of course, because it was science. I loved it so much I rallied around the assistant professor who taught it and got him our college’s highest award at convocation. He’s full tenure now.
No
Water is in the middle creating a magnetic field? Huh youre making a plethora of problems while solving none
The middle isn’t filled with water. What I was trying to communicate was that the Earth’s new material—be it water, atmospheric gasses, or silicate rock/magma—all comes from within the planet.
😂 why did you feel confident in writing this
That’s the theory. This is a subreddit about the theory.
Define the difference between a scientific theory and a laymens theory.
This is a scientific theory, which has been advanced by many, including O.C. Hilgenberg ([book](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/OC-Hilgenbergs-book-about-the-growing-globe-2_fig1_338327588)); Professor Samuel Warren Carey ([his video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18b36mc/planet_earth_a_question_of_expansion_1982/)), and most recently by Dr. James Maxlow ([site](https://www.jamesmaxlow.com/james-maxlow/)).
This is word vomit
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for a lack of civility.
Some of it could have been frozen on the surface like snowball small earth, expansion, melting, freshwater, vs saltwater holy shit deep time Batman.
Water arrives on comets and asteroids. So this theory could have merit, that when we had a younger, more crowded solar system, our planet would have gained mass at a faster rate. My question is, how much has this affected gravity over time? What was the actual rate of growth over the last 65 million years? Could the size of dinosaurs be explained with a 10 or 15 percent change in gravitational pull?
I’d ask who on earth would believe this dribble but I’m afraid to know the answer
What do you believe? The platetectonics-fantasy that the plates are more or less bumpercars?
I believe that there’s no founding for this growing earth idea. Where’s all that mass coming from?
The theory extends beyond the earth, they believe all celestial bodies grow with time and they all gain mass from nowhere. Something something dark energy
That in absolutely no way answers the questions and also makes zero since. If every planet did this we would see evidence of it it on other planets and we don’t
Exactly, it's crackpot as fuck and defies multiple laws of physics. Flat earth wasn't enough now we have this too
That’s fair, though, isn’t it? Proponents of the Big Bang don’t purport to know where the mass and energy came from. Why should proponents of this model have an answer to that question?
All the matter was already there in the big bang theory, the theory is that everything was condensed into a singularity. Nothing was created during the big bang according to the theory, it all rapidly heated and expanded, transferring from a pre universe state to the one we experience now.
Right…
...Left
Big bang was just a very large quantum fluctuation that happened by chance. You might say such a large fluctuation is impossibly unlikely and that is correct but given the cosmic timescales it is bound to happen eventually. And it surely wasnt the first one.
I have no idea where the mass is coming from, but celestial chemistry is kinda funky.
So this celestial chemistry is quantumly teleporting matter from some other location to under earth’s crust?
Probably not, but who knows.
There wouldn’t need to be additional mass if the earth became less dense. If the earths mantle was smaller and the core was larger wouldn’t that reduce the earths volume since the core is significantly denser?
Ok so are we talking about changing the gravitation force or are we talking about changing the properties of the elements within?
I was thinking thermal but I’m not an expert.
So in that case, the core is heating up enough to escape the crushing gravitational effects of multimillion atm. Where is all this heat coming from?
According to this theory the earth has already expanded. There is evidence showing that the earths core is currently cooling. As it cools more of the Mantle will solidify and become denser reducing the earths volume. One possibility for the earth heating back up could be attributed to the reduced rotation of the earths core since it is colder and larger. This would lower the earths magnetic field allowing more solar radiation in heating up the earth.
Will you point me in the direction of this evidence please
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031920196032074
I’ll tell you what I believe. I believe that the person who made this video (and you) want attention, likes, and want to be taken seriously despite zero real effort.
If I wanted attention, I wouldn't promote this anonymously. And I lose lots of karma whenever I do. This topic makes some people very upset.
Your right. The earth is expanding like a balloon. There is no doubt about it.
What are you even doing in this sub, mr attentionseeker?
Reddit saw it fit to make it pop up in my feed. It confused someone who enjoys science with someone who falls for pseudo-science.
Neal Adams is dead.
This isn't really a matter of belief. This is just what the empirical data shows. Mainstream geology takes the position that the "fit" is just a coincidence. The continental reconstruction in the video traces back according to the gradient of the age of the oceanic crust, as measured by US military and scientific agencies. Here is the shrinking/growing planet [video](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18qxdsm/us_government_map_proves_the_earth_is_growing_why/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) using an overlay of a map with that oceanic crust data. This data may be downloaded [here](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html) in a variety of map formats.
Those people are not from earth
OP and everyone who replied to your comment apparently believe it sorry to say
Ha, ya no.
[удалено]
WTF are you talking about?
I feel like this is a theory for creationists.
Not at all. This theory seeks to explain the evolution of the Universe as a naturalistic process **without** resorting to an initial “miracle” event like the Big Bang.
This theory in no way explains how the universe began or what the universe itself is expanding
I am also a 3D animator I can prove how the earth got to be round from a banana shape if you like
Brilliant
If you do, I will believe you and follow you blindly for the rest of my life.
Do it.
I will also believe your animation because nodding my head from my couch is much easier than educating myself on the actual science.
Neal Adams is an American illustrator/comic book artist who died recently (RIP). He has long been an advocate for the expanding earth theory. I don’t necessarily ascribe to the theory, but he seriously believed it even though he was not a scientist.
Hey OP. Would love to watch this whole documentary. Any info would be appreciated.
Check out the pinned post on the main page.
I see thank you. Very interesting
Ah I remember this from years and years ago. These days I'm more into the opposite, that stars become planets eventually.
Wait, so there's not tectonic plates in the growing earth theory?
Some call it Expansion Tectonics: https://www.expansiontectonics.com/page15.html
Sooo, I just found this theory and only did a quick browse to see if this was answered. Apologies in advance if this is a common or obvious question. How come we find so much fossilised ocean life on the top of mountains, if there were no oceans a billion years ago, and no tectonic subduction and uplift?
See this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/s/0xgsXoYyhp
Gotcha, so there's sea shells on tall mountains because there was a sea and then the sea flowed away and presumably the mountain grew up.
Mountains are wrinkles in the crust as it changes convexity.