The Growing Earth Theory

[Anglojew]

I hope it's not a repost. What do people think of the Growing Earth Theory from Neal Adams?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/EarthGrowth.jpg

[1stLightHorse]

Very interesting. I've noticed a common theme in the scientific establishment. Holding onto ideas because of the consequences of accepting new ones that are more sound. It seems the "citizen scientist" fills this void nicely. The human genome is a good example. Research and theories are contributed by a large number of 'regular' individuals who have an interest in it and discussing new ideas regularly and always willing to accept them because their careers don't depend on it.

I like this theory, though this is the first i've heard of it.

[Anglojew]

Very interesting. I've noticed a common theme in the scientific establishment. Holding onto ideas because of the consequences of accepting new ones that are more sound. It seems the "citizen scientist" fills this void nicely. The human genome is a good example. Research and theories are contributed by a large number of 'regular' individuals who have an interest in it and discussing new ideas regularly and always willing to accept them because their careers don't depend on it.

I like this theory, though this is the first i've heard of it.

It makes total sense. I used to study archaeology and I've asked many people and no one can give me a satisfactory answer to why the more ancient a civilisation the further underground it is eg requiring excavations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Dolina-Pano-3.jpg

The explanation on Wikipedia sounds almost childlike for instance, "Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on."

If this was the case then hills might form over cities but not uniformly across the Earth. One might possibly say it's because of erosion from mountains or dust from asteroids but this doesn't really explain it in my opinion but the Growing Earth Theory explains this perfectly.

[Kazimiera]

Would you maybe like to post an article about it, because I haven't heard of it before.

[Anglojew]

Would you maybe like to post an article about it, because I haven't heard of it before.

Growing Earth?

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/pdf/Expansion_Tectonics_2.pdf

Seems to be a more scientific article but I haven't read it.

[Petros Houhoulis]

It makes total sense. I used to study archaeology and I've asked many people and no one can give me a satisfactory answer to why the more ancient a civilisation the further underground it is eg requiring excavations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Dolina-Pano-3.jpg

The explanation on Wikipedia sounds almost childlike for instance, "Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on."

If this was the case then hills might form over cities but not uniformly across the Earth. One might possibly say it's because of erosion from mountains or dust from asteroids but this doesn't really explain it in my opinion but the Growing Earth Theory explains this perfectly.

Ever heard of volcanoes?

There is a lot of material flown into the sky by the earths' volcanoes. Once this dust subsides, it covers older material. It doesn't have to be an expansion. Still, you cannot explain the most crucial detail: Where did all this water come from...

In hindsight, all of those meteors who fall on Earth add slightly to its' mass, but they cannot create all of these oceans. In fact, the only theory that can explain it all would be if the massive object that collided with earth in order to form the moon was actually composed mainly of water, and that all of that water was pulled by the Earths' gravity while the rest of that astronomical body formed the moon after the collision...

[Loki]

I don't believe in it. Where did the water for the oceans come from then?

[Anglojew]

I don't believe in it. Where did the water for the oceans come from then?

Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis

[Loki]

Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis

I realise now that Petros raised exactly the same doubts that I had, I didn't read his post before. Hmmm ...

[Insuperable]

Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[16] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[17] The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[18][19][20]

Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior.[citation needed]
Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.[citation needed]

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8 percent of today's radius.[21][22]

Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.

What more do you need?

[Petros Houhoulis]

Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis

...And it was so massive that it covered the 3/4 of the earth?